BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME
of the
HENRY HOMES FUND

D.W ID BARTON
Speaker of the Mi.^Mjun Territorial House of Representatives l.Si,s, Preydent of the Missouri
Constitutional Convention 1S20, United States Senator from Missouri 1820-1830

72834—1

MISSOURI'S
STRUGGLE FOR STATEHOOD
1804-1821

BY

FLOYD CALVIN SHOEMAKER, A.B., A.M.
Secretary of
The State Historical Society of Missouri

THE HUGH STEPHENS PRINTING CO.
JEFFERSON CITY
1916

Copyrighted, 1916
By
FLOYD CALVIN SHOEMAKER
All rights reserved

TO ISIDOR LOEB
Native Missourian, Citizen of Public Spirit,
Distinguished Scholar and Educator, Guide and
Teacher in my Early Study of Government and
Politics, This Book, in Token of Friendship and
Gratitude Sincere, is Dedicated.

PREFACE.

To relate in an accurate manner the story of Missouri's
struggle for statehood, of her first constitutional convention
and constitution, and of her first state election and legislature,
has been my purpose. The birth of a state is an important
event. The travail of the State of Missouri was especially
significant even in the history of the Nation. Congress alone
was forced to adopt two compromises after four sessions of
debate before the "Missouri Question" was settled. The ex
istence of slavery in new states and territories was for the first
time the great problem in public discussion and Congressional
debate. The national side of Missouri's struggle for statehood
has received more or less attention from writers: the local side
has been passed over with little comment. The latter made its
appeal to me over six years ago. Beginning in 1909 and con
tinuing to 1911, I made a study of the history and origin of the
Missouri constitution of 1820. During the years following I
enlarged this study to its present scope.
Few secondary works were used in this volume. Private
and public manuscripts, laws, constitutions, journals of
legislative bodies and constitutional conventions, memoirs and
newspapers, have been the bases of most statements. The
chief defect of the work lies in its lack of a Bibliography. This
has been largely remedied, however, by the foot-notes which
explain where the material consulted may be found.
To a number of persons I am indebted for aid. For sug
gestions and criticisms of a literary character, I beg to acknowl
edge the kind services of Profs. H. M. Belden, A. H. R. Fair-
child and H. McC. Burrowes, of the English Department of
the University of Missouri. For assistance of a historical
nature, I am under obligations to Prof. F. F. Stephens, of the
History Department of the University of Missouri, and to the
Hon. Louis Houck, of Cape Girardeau, Missouri. To Mr.
Houck I am specially indebted for his mature advice and sug-
(5)

6 Preface.
gestions on several of the early chapters, for the information
obtained from his Histor'y of Missouri, and for the use of most
of the cuts in this book. No general work on Missouri history
down to 1820 bears comparison with Houck's Histor'y of Mis
souri. This work should be in the hands of every student of
western and Missouri history. It and Prof. H. A. Trexler's
Slavery in Missouri were, in fact, practically the only secondary
works that helped me.
To the hundreds of Missourians who furnished me with
information relating to the delegates who framed Missouri's
first constitution, I especially wish to acknowledge thanks of
appreciation. Without their help and the kind services of the
editors of the State in forwarding my quest for information,
I could never have written the chapter on The Fathers of the
State. Without the aid of Dr. Mereness, of Washington, D. C,
I could not have obtained copies of the early Missouri petitions
in the National archives. To Mr. Putnam, librarian of the Li
brary of Congress, and to his courteous assistants, I am under
obligations for help of the greatest value. Modesty should
not, I think, estop me from also acknowledging the extent and
character of the information obtained from the invaluable col
lections of The State Historical Society of Missouri. Most of
my work was done in the library of this institution and to it
I feel under special obligations.
The delay in publishing this work has been a source of deep
regret to me. The Hugh Stephens Printing Company did well
its part, my duties in The State Historical Society prevented
me, however, from handling proof as fast as I had expected.
The approaching centennial of Missouri's statehood makes
opportune this volume. From it facts may be obtained that will
give a more secure foundation to the mass of popular literature
that will be published on Missouri history during the next half
decade. To have accurate information on Missouri's struggle
for statehood, on her first constitutional convention and con
stitution, on her first state election and on the inner workings of
her first general assembly, is not only desirable but important
to Missouri and Missourians. To place this information in
the hands of all seeking it, is my excuse for writing this book.

CONTENTS.

Page
Chapter I. Missouri Constitutional History During
the Territorial Period  9
Chapter 1 1 . Missouri Petitions for Statehood and the
Struggle in Congress  37
Chapter III. Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1819. .. . 81
Chapter IV. Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820 —
Election of Delegates  114
Chapter V. Fathers of the State — Personnel of the
Constitutional Convention of 1820  135
Chapter VI. Labors of the Convention  166
Chapter VII. Authorship of the Missouri Constitu
tion OF 1820  193
Chapter VIII. Origin and Content of the Constitu
tion OF 1820  212
Chapter IX. A De Facto State  254
Chapter X. Second Missouri Compromise  290
Chapter XI. Statehood in the Union  302
Appendix I. Memorial to Congress of the Citizens
OF Missouri Territory, 1817, Requesting State
hood  321
Appendix II. Memorial and Resolutions of Missouri
Territorial Legislature, 1818, Petitioning Con
gress FOR Statehood  324
Appendix III. Missouri Constitution of 1820 and
Ordinance of Missouri Constitutional Conven
tion, 1820  329
Appendix IV. Missouri's Solemn Public Act, 1821 .... 360
Index  363

(7)

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

Page
Barton, David. By courtesy of Mrs. Josephine Barton,
Kansas City, Mo  Frontispiece
Baber, Hiram H. From Louis Houck's History of Missouri,
Vol. IIL, p. 265  148
Bates, Edward. From Louis Houck's Hist, of Mo., III. 18. 120
Benton, Thomas H. From Louis Houck's Hist, of Mo., HI.
268  120
Boundary of Missouri as First Suggested in 1817. From
Houck's Hist, of Mo., 1.3  66
Boundary of Missouri as Suggested by the Territorial Legis
lature in 1818. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., 1.5  66
Boundary of Missouri as Adopted by Congress in 1820.
From Houck's Hist, of Mo., 1.6  66
Boundary of Missouri with the Platte Purchase Added.
From Houck's Hist, of Mo., I. 12  66
Charless, Joseph. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., III. 65  120
Chouteau, Pierre, Jr. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., III. 254 120
Cook, John D. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., III. 266  148
Jones, John Rice. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., III. 257 . . . 148
McNair, Alexander. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., III. 253. 120
"Mansion House" Hotel. From Official Manual of Mis
souri 1913-1914, p. 15, by courtesy of Hon. Cornelius
Roach, Sec. of State  166
"Missouri Hotel." Ibid  166
Missouri's Temporary Capitol at St. Charles, Mo., 1821-
1826. Ibid  310
Pettus, William G. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., III. 250. . 120
Ramsay, Jonathan. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., III. 263. 148
Reeves, B. H. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., III. 259  148
Scott, John. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., III. 13  148
(8)

CHAPTER I.
MISSOURI CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY DURING THE
TERRITORIAL PERIOD.
In the history of an American commonwealth there appear
relatively few dates that chronicle events of commanding im
portance. Ranking first in the history of Missouri and one of
the foremost in that of the United States, is April 30, 1803.
On that date was concluded the treaty between this Nation and
France for the cession of Louisiana. The ratification of this
treaty was advised by the United States Senate and was made
by President Jefferson on October 21, 1803; and on the same
day ratifications were exchanged and a proclamation was issued
to that effect.! By this treaty the United States came into the
absolute possession of the largest and most valuable extent of
territory that was ever obtained purely through purchase by
any nation since the dawn of history. Prior to 1762 France
had held legal title to Louisiana, but since the settlements made
in that part now included in the State of Missouri had been
few, the French law need not receive consideration here* From
1762 to 1800 Spain held legal title to Louisiana. By the Treaty
of San Ildefonso, October 1, 1800, Louisiana was retroceded by
Spain to France, but Spain remained in actual possession almost
up to the time of transfer to the United States in 1803. During
a period of thirty-four years the Spanish law of Upper Louisiana
governed the people within the present limits of Missouri.^
Nor were these laws less binding after the cession of 1803,
except as they were expressly annulled, superseded, or amended.'
However, for our purposes, the provisions of the Spanish laws

' Treaties & Conventions, I. 508-11; Mo. Ter. Laws, I. 1-4.
» Houck, Hist. Mo.. I. 287, 298. The secret treaty of Fontainebleau. De
cember 3, 1762, ceded the territory west of the Mississippi to Spain. France
ofSciaUy advised the director-general of Louisiana of this fact in a letter dated
AprU 21, 1764. On the 18th of August. 1769. Spain took possession of Louisiana,
and on May 20, 1770, Upper Louisiana was formally surrendered to Spain.
• Casselberry. First Laws of the Miss. -Valley, Western Journal, I. 191f; 4 Mo.
Beports, p. 380; 10 Mo. Reports, p. 199; Mo. Ter. Laws, 1816, p. 436.
(9)

10 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
of Upper Louisiana may be disregarded. The English system
of jurisprudence gradually superseded that of the Continent
in Upper Louisiana, and today the organic law of Missouri rests
on an Anglo-American basis beginning with the act of Congress
of October 31, 1803.
It is important to notice in this connection one of the
articles of the treaty of cession of 1803. Article III stated:
"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated
in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as
possible, according to the principles of the federal constitution,
to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities
of citizens of the United States; and in the meantime they shall
be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their
liberty, property, and the religion which they profess." At the
time of Missouri's struggle for admission in 1819 and 1820, it
appears from the articles in the territorial newspapers that
practically every well informed Missourian was familiar with
this article and especially with that part which guaranteed the
inhabitants protection "in the free enjoyment of their liberty,
property, and the religion," etc. Slaves formed part of the
"property" of the people of Upper Louisiana prior to 1803, and
also after that time, and Congressional dictation on this subject
only served to recall the third article of the treaty of 1803.
Under Spanish rule, the Province of Louisiana was divided
into a lower and an upper district for the purpose of facilitating
governmental administration. There were several reasons for
this division, the more important being the great distance sep
arating the two centers of settlement near the mouth of the
Mississippi and that of the Missouri.* Also, the population
around New Orleans, which was the seat of government of
Lower Louisiana, was greater and represented a higher stage of
development than we find in Upper Louisiana. The Governor-

< Nicollet in his history of St. Louis, page 92, states that in 1763, Laclede,
the founder of St. Louis, took three months to come from New Orleans to Ste.
Genevieve with his flotilla, a distance of 1,286 miles.
Cf. also Houck, Hist. Mo., II. 4.
It took about three months to ascend the Mississippi at that time as is also
evidenced in the Report of Don Pedro Piernas to Gov. O'Reilly dated Oct. 31,
1769, (Houck, Spanish Regime in Mo., I, 66-75.) and in a letter of Fernando De
Leyba dated July 11, 1778. (Ibid., pp. 163f.)

Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 11
General at New Orleans exercised direct jurisdiction over Lower
Louisiana and appellate jurisdiction over the upper district;
and a Lieutenant-Governor at St. Louis exercised direct juris
diction over Upper Louisiana.^
At the time of the cession the population of Upper Louis
iana was over ten thousand,^ of which over one-half were Amer
icans.' Not only did Spanish law give place to English law,
but even Spanish and French influence as represented by the
population had already greatly diminished and was soon to
become a negligible quantity as far as legislation was concerned.
Excepting some of the large Spanish land grantees and a part
of the American settlers, especially those around Cape Girar
deau and Mine a Breton, the inhabitants of Upper Louisiana
neither rejoiced nor were they even reconciled either at the
time when the treaty of cession became known or later when
the actual transfer was made.* As an historical illustration of

> Stoddard. Sketches of Louisiana, chap. VIII. Loeb, Beginning of Mo. Leg.
in Mo. Hist. R., I. 53f.
• Stoddard, op. cit., p. 226, gives the population in 1804 as 10,340—9,020 whites
aud 1,320 slaves.
' Ibid., p. 225, states that three-fifths of the population were "English Amer
icans." Perkins and Peck, Annals of the West, pp. 543f., gives the total population of
Upper Louisiana In 1804 as 10,120 and divides it as follows: French and Spanish,
3,760; Anglo-Americans, 5,090; Blacks, 1,270.
Rufus Easton, later Territorial Delegate to Congress from Missouri, in a
letter dated at St. Louis, January 17, 1805, to President Jefferson, states that in
1801 the census taken of the inhabitants of Upper Louisiana showed a population
of 10,301; and that according to the best informed persons in the district the
population at the close of 1804 had risen to over 12,000. Of this latter number
he thought that two-flfths were French and the others mostly immigrants from
the United States. (Copy of this letter in State Hist. Soc. of Missouri: original
in Mss. Div., Library of Cong., Jefferson Papers, 2d Series, vol. 32.)
• "On the 9th day of July, 1803, at seven o'clock p. m. — and the precision
with which this date is registered indicates the profound sensation with which
the news was received — the inhabitants of St. Louis learned, indirectly at first,
that Spain had retroceded Louisiana to Napoleon, and that the latter had sold
it to the United States." Nicollet, p. 89.
"It is easier to imagine than to describe the astonishment and wonder of the
good colonists, when, as a sequel of the sundry official acts by which they were
declared republicans, and their country a member of the great American confed
eration founded by Washington, they witnessed the arrival of a legion of judges,
lawyers, notaries, collectors of taxes, etc., etc., and, above all, a flock of vampires
in the shape of land speculators. Liberty, with the popular Institutions that
accompany her, was welcomed; their advantages were soon understood; etc."
Ibid., pp. 90f. This last statement by Nicollet is not entirely true. American
institutions were not welcomed, especially by the better class of Frenchmen, and

12 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
however quickly they were understood, their advantages were late in being ap
preciated. See below the account of the French convention of delegates in Sep
tember, 1804.
Mr. Primm says: —
"When the transfer was completely effected — when in the presence of the
assembled population, the flag of the United States had replaced that of Spain —
the tears and lamentations of the ancient inhabitants, proved how much they
dreaded the change which the treaty of cession had brought about." Perkins and
Peck, op. cit., p. 537.
Mr. Houck does not take the same position on this point. He says: "With
out the least objection on the part of the French population of Upper Louisiana,
and to the great satisfaction of the American settlers, the jurisdiction of the
United States was thus extended over the new territory." (Houck. Hist. Mo.,
II. 373). Speaking of the sentiment in Cape Girardeau, he adds: "At Cape
Girardeau the people, who were all Americans, with the exception of Lorimier
and Cousin, were pleased greatly with the transfer of the country and seem to
have been decidedly hostile, if not to the Spanish Government, to the Spanish
offlcers." (Ibid., p. 364.) However, regarding New Madrid he makes the following
statement: "But the people of New Madrid were not pleased with the change
of government and he [i. e. Don Juan La Vallee, who surrendered the New Mad
rid fort to Captain Bissell] writes that 'this change has caused the greatest anger
among these habitans, who live here, and especially on the day of surrender,
during the ceremonies of which they have expressed the greatest grief.' 4" (.Ibid.,
p. 363. The footnote No. 4 gives the authority for the foregoing as follows:
"General Archives of the Indies, Seville — Eeport of La Vallee to the Marquis
de Casa Calvo and Don Manuel de Salcedo — dated March 29, 1804.")
Even as regards the inhabitants of Cape Girardeau, Major T. W. Waters,
a resident of that town, wrote in a letter dated August 23, 1804, to President
Jefferson as follows: "I will observe one thing to you. Sir, that many here do
not like the change and every law that is passed that puts them in a worse situa
tion than they would have been under the Spaniards is criticised and the worst
construction put on, and those that are fond of the change feel disappointed at
the law that Congress has passed for the government of this country." (.Ibid.,
pp. 385f.) It is however, quite probable that Major Waters referred purely to
the change in sentiment after the cession was made and after the law of Congress
of March 26, 1804, became known.
Regarding the holders of large Spanish land grants and incidentally of the
sentiment in St. Louis at the time of the cession, Mr. Houck says: "A few French
land speculators, who, ... , had secured large and important conces
sions of land, no doubt anticipated to reap great benefits. They well understood
that land values would greatly increase, because free donations of land to actual
settlers would no longer be made. Under the new government these holders of
concessions and their assignees at once became and were regarded as the landed
capitalists of the new territory. Such being the case, it is very probable that
one of the chief beneficiaries of the favors of the late Spanish authorities became
very enthusiastic and called for 'three cheers in honor, of his adopted country',
as has been stated. Nevertheless, it is said that Charles Gratiot was about the
only man in St. Louis who took a personal interest in the transfer of the country
to the United States; that the people as a whole were indifferent. But Gratiot
had received large land grants and perhaps understood better than anyone in
St. Louis at that time the immense beneflt a change of government implied."
(Ibid., pp. 373f.) Mr. Houck further says: "The general apathy of the French
inhabitants at the time lead [led] many to think that the inhabitants were not
flt for self-government." (.Ibid., p. 375.)
Major Amos Stoddard, who certainly was most competent to judge of the
sentiment in Upper Louisiana at the time of the cession, wrote as follows: "In
deed, few of the French, and part of the English Americans only, were at flrst recon-

Constitutional History Duriitg Territorial Period. 13
ciled to the change, though they never manifested any discontent. The former
did not doubt the justice of the United States; but they seemed to feel as if they
had been sold in open market, and by this means degraded; the treaty of 1762,
and the change under it in 1769, rushed on their minds, and awakened all their
apprehensions. The latter anticipated taxation, many of whom had abandoned
their native country to avoid it, and voluntarily became the subjects of a govern
ment, careful not to impose any burdens on the agricultural part of the com
munity." (Stoddard, op. cit., p. 311. For an account of some of the actual
benefits that did accrue then and later to Upper Louisiana under American rule.
cf. ibid., pp. 253f., 266: and Brackenridge, -Views of Louisiana, pp. 140, 143-145.)
(Italics mine.)
An equally reliable authority on this point is Eufus Easton, who on January
17, 1805, wrote the following from St. Louis: "That they the French Inhabitants
are in general enemies to the change of Government requires no argument to dem
onstrate — it depends on fact. When it was rumoured thro' [sic] this Country
last summer that a recession to Spain would take place, joy gladden in their hearts —
This however must not be taken for a universal sentiment — It is only that of the
few who have feasted upon the labors of the more ignorant and industrious and
whom they prejudice and influence as they please. Many have suflScient dis
cernment to perceive that the cession to the United States advanced their landed
property at least two hundred per centum they thank the stars and are willing
to give the praise to whom it Is due." (Letter to Pres. Jefferson. Copy in State
Hist. Soc. of Mo. Original in Mss. Div., Library of Congress. Jefferson Papers,
Sd Series, vol. 32.)
Darby, although not a contemporary authority, was well acquainted with
many who witnessed the transfer of Upper Louisiana in 1804. The following
quotation is from his work: "It was Charles Gratiot who requested the In
habitants, in their native tongue, when the ceremony took place, to cheer the
American fiag, when it was for the first time run up and floated to the breeze on
the western bank of the Mississippi. The cheers of the crowd were faint and
few, as many, very many of the people shed bitter tears of regret at being trans
ferred, without previous knowledge, from the sovereignty of a government and
language to which they had been accustomed and fondly attached, and under
which they had been bred, to that of a strange government, with whose manners,
habits, language, and laws they were not familiar. There existed, moreover,
in the minds of many of the French inhabitants a deep-rooted prejudice against
the Americans, notwithstanding the encouraging and conciliating speech made
by their countryman and friend, Charles Gratiot, who was favorable to, and
sustained and approved the transfer of the country." . "Mr. Jefferson, from
his long residence in Paris, understood the French character well, was much
attached to the French people, and was aware that the inhabitants of Louisiana
disliked and were greatly opposed to the American government." (Recollections,
pp. 223f.) Scharfl quotes Billon as follows regarding the sentiment in St. Louis in 1804:
"On that day (March 9, 1804) the inhabitants witnessed a scene which, to much
the largest portion of them, was fraught with sadness and apprehension. These
people had been so long contented and happy under the mild sway of all their
Spanish commandants, with one exception alone (De Leyba), that It was not sur
prising they should have entertained those feelings at being transferred, them
selves and homes, to a nation whose people were mainly descended from the
English, a nation that for generations back they had looked upon as the natural
and hereditary enemy of the land from whence they sprung. For it must be
borne in mind that they were nearly all of French origin, and although under
Spanish dominion, there were but few Spaniards in the country, outside of ths
oflacials and soldiery." (Hist. St. Louis, I. 259.)

14 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
how circumstances may alter cases might be noted here the
cold reception extended to the United States by these early
Missourians of 1804 when they first learned of their newly made
connection with the Federal Union of States, and on the other
hand, how impassioned they were fifteen years later in their
arguments for admission into that very Union. We believe
that the reasons for their first attitude were: their attachment
to the Spanish regime with its practical freedom from taxes and
military services, with its swift and generally true justice, its
liberal land policy, and its uniform respect for French institu
tions, customs and language ; and their dislike of American laws
and institutions, combined with the fear of some attack on
slavery, such as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787'. Moreover,
the French inhabitants felt insecure of their religion under the
new Republic.!" Years later when they perceived the benefits
that would flow from statehood and when the flood of American
immigration poured in, they naturally desired admission into
the Union. The first organic law of American origin that applied to
Louisiana was passed at the first session of the Eighth Congress
of the United States on October 31, 1803, and provided a tem
porary government for the new district. This act empowered
the President of the United States to take possession of Louis
iana, and placed under his direction all military, civil and judicial
powers that had been exercised by the officials of the existing
government. This great power was lodged in his hands until

• It is here worthy of notice that on January 23. 1804, there was communi
cated to the United States Senate a "Memorial of the American Convention for
Promoting the Abolition of Slavery" praying Congress to prohibit by law the
importation of slaves into the "Territory of Louisiana, lately ceded to the United
States." This memorial actually suggested an enactment on this subject similar
to the oue in the Northwest Ordinance. Am. State Papers, Misc., I. 386. The
chaotic condition of society which had prevailed in the Illinois country after
American occupation would also hardly have served to endear the United States
in the minds of many of both the French and American settlers who had immi
grated to Upper Louisiana from their former homes on the east bank of the Mis
sissippi during the latter eighties and the nineties of the 18th century. Cf. also
Kaskaskia Becords 1778-1790. in III. Hist. Collections, V; especially letter of John
Eice Jones, later Justice of Missouri Supreme Court, dated Oct. 29. 1789, at
Kaskaskia to Major Hamtramck. (Ibid., pp. 514-517.) The inhabitants of
Upper Louisiana, especially the older ones, also undoubtedly resented the manner
of cession which appeared to them like a sale in the open market.
" Alback's, Annals of the West, p. 777.

Constitutional History During Territorial Period, 15
Congress made other regulations.^^ Strange though it seems
to us now, this law was not unfavorably received by the French
inhabitants of Louisiana. And the reason for this attitude was
not because they excused and appreciated it as a temporary
makeshift government and therefore as a necessary, initiatory
step towards later self-government, but rather because of their
natural inclination for a military regime, due to years of training
under just such a centralized government. The belief that this
act was unpopular in Upper Louisiana is unfounded in fact. In
the eyes of the French better classes it must have seemed at
the time the ideal type of government for this territory. It
was in the following year, after Congress had passed an act
annexing Upper Louisiana to Indiana Territory, that these
well-to-do Frenchmen petitioned Congress and through their
representative, Chouteau, pleaded with President Jefferson for
just this kind of government.
Under this law Captain Amos Stoddard was appointed the
first American civil commandant of Upper Louisiana. The
seat of government remained at St. Louis, and little change in
governmental administration was introduced. This was in
accordance with the policy of the Washington officials, who
wisely tried to pacify the fears of the inhabitants. '^ Congress
did not wait long, however, in making provision for the govern
ment of Louisiana. By an act of March 26, 1804, Louisiana
was divided into two districts or territories. All south of the
thirty- third degree of north latitude was to be called the "ter
ritory of Orleans;" and all north, the "district of Louisiana;"
the line of demarcation being the present southern boundary of
Arkansas. The District of Louisiana was placed under the
government of Indiana Territory, which then consisted of a
Governor, Secretary, and three Judges. The Governor and
Judges exercised full judicial, legislative and executive power

^^ Stat, at Large, II. 245; Treaties & Conventions, I. 508fl.
" Captain Stoddard had instructions that "inasmuch as the largest portion
of the old inhabitants were strenuously opposed to the change of government,
it would go far to conciliate them, and they would much sooner become reconciled
to the new order of things, by making little, if any change in the modus operandi
of the government, at least for a time." Billon, Annals of St. Louis, 1764-1804,
p. 364.

16 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
under certain general restrictions. They were specifically
given power to establish inferior courts and prescribe their
duties; make laws, etc., except those abridging religious freedom
or those contrary to the laws of the United States; and it was
also set forth that criminal trials were to be by a jury of twelve
and civil trials involving amounts over $100 also to be by jury.
The judges were to hold two annual courts in the district. It
was provided, among other things, that the laws in force in the
District of Louisiana which were not inconsistent with this
act were to remain in force until altered. This act went into
effect October 1, 1804,'^ and excepting the attempted legisla
tion bearing on the "Missouri Question" Congress never passed
an act which applied solely to Missouri that was more detested
by at least one-half of her population than was this one. It is
hardly necessary to enter into a discussion of the laws governing
the District of Louisiana passed by the Governors and Judges
of Indiana Territory. There were sixteen acts passed in all;
however, their bearing on this study is unimportant." It should
be stated that these laws were well suited to a pioneer com
munity like Missouri, and no criticism of them is found in any
of the literature of that day.
From the very beginning of Missouri's connection with the
United States there has never existed the least timidity on the
part of the people of this State to make known to the nation

^'Stat. at large, II. 283-289; Mo. Ter. Laws, pp. 5f.
A large part of this act also dealt with the governmeut of the Territory of
Orleans. The Inhabitants of Lower Louisiana included in the new "Territory
of Orleans" were equaUy incensed by this act. They drafted a memorial protesting
against the division of Louisiana into two parts and the lack of self-government.
This act gave the "Territory of Orleans" a territorial government of the first or
lowest grade. This petition is said to have been signed by over two thousand
heads of families of Louisiana. It was entitled a "Remonstrance Of The People
Of Louisiana Against The Political System Adopted By Congress For Them."
aud was communicated to the Senate December 31, 1804. Am. State Papers,
Misc., I. 396fl.
This petition was placed in the hands of a committee appointed by the House
of Eepresentatives. On January 25, 1805, the committee closed its reports with
a resolution "that provision ought to be made by law for extending to the inhab
itants of Louisiana the right of self-government." This resolution was passed
by the House on January 28, 1805. Annals of Congress, pp. 1014-21.
To this same committee was also referred the petition of the inhabitants of
the "District of Louisiana," which will next be discussed. Ibid., p. 957.
" Cf. also Loeb. op. cit., I. 59-71.

Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 17
in a perfectly constitutional way their wants and grievances.
The legislation of Congress in 1804 for the inhabitants of the
District of Louisiana was received with the greatest disfavor
west of the Mississippi, and occasioned the first of a long series
of petitions and remonstrances presented to Congress by the
inhabitants of the present State of Missouri. These early peti
tions are characterized by temperate language and a tone of
positiveness based on a just cause. Although at the time of
the cession there was no considerable open dissatisfaction or
opposition, in less than six months after that the discontent was
widespread. The people of Upper Louisiana did not like the
American regime with its numerous officials, tax gatherers and
jury system. They regarded with equal disfavor the method
provided for settling the Spanish land grants ;!* the increased
expenses under the American regime, e. g., taxes, road and mili
tary service without compensation; the absence of all repre
sentative government; and the act of March 26, 1804, in whole.
As early as August 23, 1804, Major T. W. Waters of Cape
Girardeau, a staunch American and a man of influence, wrote
President Jefferson that a petition had been "drawn up" protesting
against parts of that act of Congress." On September 29, 1804,
two days before the act of Congress of March 26, 1804, was to
take effect, a "remonstrance and petition of the representatives
elected by the freemen of the districts in the District of Louis
iana to Congress" was drawn up and signed in St. Louis by
sixteen deputies from the five subdivisions now included in the
State of Missouri.!' The sixteen delegates were apportioned
as follows: two from each of the districts of New Madrid,
Cape Girardeau, and Ste. Genevieve; six from St. Louis and
"dependencies;" and four from St. Charles and "dependencies."
The dissatisfaction with the law of March 26, 1804, was based
on the grievances that it annexed upper Louisiana to Indiana
Territory; that it contained no provisions granting self-govern
ment; that it did not protect and secure slavery west of the

" Stoddard, op. cit., p. 253.
" Houck. Hist. Mo., II. 385, 387f.
" Am. State Papers, Misc., I. 400fl. This petition was presented to Congress
January 4, 1805.
M S— 2

18 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Mississippi River; that it proposed settling the eastern Indians
on Louisiana soil; and that section fourteen of that act, the
section relating to the Spanish land grants, was unjust and un
reasonable. This last grievance was beyond question the most
real and deeply seated of all. One prominent contemporary of
that day even goes so far as to state that the annexation of
upper Louisiana to Indiana Territory was only an ostensible
objection to the law of 1804, and that the real ground for dis
satisfaction was the land title clause.^*
This interesting petition remonstrates at some length
against the division of the Louisiana Purchase into two parts
and states that the ceded territory if left as one whole had
sufficient population to be admitted as a state; that the North
west Ordinance provided for the admission of States in that
district which had a population of sixty thousand and that
Ohio when admitted did not have more than from thirty-three to
forty thousand free inhabitants ; that the third article of the treaty
of cession provided that the inhabitants of Louisiana were to
be incorporated into the United States as soon as possible; that
if Congress could divide Louisiana once, she could subdivide
indefinitely whenever the population became sufficient to form a
state, and thus would Louisiana be always oppressed. This
part of the remonstrance against the division of Louisiana was
followed by a protest against the form of government provided
for the "District of Louisiana." The delegates seriously ob
jected to being under the government of another territory;
being under a governor of another territory who did not reside
or hold a freehold estate in the District of Louisiana; the seat
of government being at Vincennes, which was one hundred and
sixty-five miles over impassable roads from them, and the
governor sometimes even farther distant; the laws of Indiana
Territory not being similar to those of Louisiana, e. g., slavery
existed in Louisiana and was prohibited in the Northwest Ter
ritory; and to the absence of a Congressional law on slavery,
which might make the inhabitants of the District of Louisiana
feel that perhaps some day Congress would abolish it, even
though by the treaty with France they were protected in their

"Letter of Rufus Easton, op. cit.

Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 19
property. In short they objected to the great injustice of being
under Indiana Territory; but they also objected, and, we believe,
in a more serious way, to the fourteenth section of the act of
Congress of March 26, 1804, which declared null and void all
Spanish land grants made subsequent to the treaty of San Ilde
fonso, and to the fifteenth section of this same act which settled
Indians from east of the Mississippi on the land in Louisiana
District. Further, they objected to the use of the inferior
word "District" as applied to Louisiana in contradistinction to
"Territory" as applied to Indiana and Orleans.^' There was
really much righteous wrath on the part of the Louisiana in
habitants against that part of the Act of Congress which pro
posed settling the Indians from the country east of the Mis
sissippi in this district. The necessity of protecting themselves
against the Indians already west of the Mississippi imposed
labors and hardships on those pioneers. Even President Jef
ferson, who, we think, lacked here his usual foresight, warmly
favored this removal of the savages.^"
The delegates then asked that the act which divided Louis
iana into two territories and which provided a temporary govern
ment thereof, be repealed; that there be made a permanent
division of Louisiana legally; that the Governor, Secretary, and
Judges of Louisiana District be appointed by the President and
reside and hold property there; that the above officers be ap
pointed from those speaking both French and English; that the
records of each county and the proceedings of the courts of Louis
iana District be kept in both French and English ; that Louisiana
District be divided into five counties and that the people of
each county elect two members for a term of two years to form
with the Governor a Legislative Council ; that they be protected
in their slaves and be given the right to import slaves. They
also asked that Louisiana District be permitted to send a dele
gate to Congress and that funds be apportioned and lands set

"Houck, Hist. Mo., II. 388.
"Jefferson's Writings, VIII. 249. In a, letter to Horatio Gates dated July
11, 1803, speaking of Louisiana Jefferson writes: "If our legislature dispose of
it with the wisdom we have a right to expect, they may make it the means of
tempting all our Indians on the East side of the Mississippi to remove to the
West, and of condensing instead of scattering our population."

20 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
apart for French and English schools in each county and also
for a "seminary of learning." And, finally, they requested that
private engagements which had been entered into during the
Spanish rule and which were conformable to the Spanish law,
be maintained; that former final judgments rendered according
to the Spanish law, should not be reversed; and that former
judgments which had been rendered under the Spanish law and
which according to it were appealable, should still be appeal
able to the proper United States courts.
This petition was accompanied by a declaration of "the
Representatives of the District of Louisiana, in General Assembly
met," signed in St. Louis September 30, 1804. There were
fifteen deputies from five districts and from Femme Osage in
this latter meeting, which was held in St. Louis. The declaration
was signed by the president and secretary of the convention
on the 30th and the authenticity of their signatures was certi
fied by Amos Stoddard, Captain and First Civil Commandant
in Upper Louisiana, who added "that re'speict ought to be paid
to what they affirm." ^^ The declaration of the fifteen delegates
of Upper Louisiana simply stated that "Mr. Augustus Chouteau"
•and "Mr. Eligius Fromentin" had been "unanimously chosen"
to act "as the deputies, delegates, and agents, general and
special, for the inhabitants of Louisiana, for the purpose of
presenting to the honorable the Congress of the United States"
the "humble petition" aforesaid. Of the sixteen names of the
delegates attached to the "petition," the document first referred
to above, thirteen are the same as are affixed to the "declara
tion." There was also a slight change in the apportionment
of the delegates who signed the "declaration:" there being one
each from New Madrid and Femme Osage; four from Cape
Girardeau; two from Ste. Genevieve; four from St. Louis and
dependencies; and three from St. Charles and dependencies.^^
This memorial or petition as adopted and transmitted to
Congress by Auguste Chouteau, was quite different from the

" Am. State Papers, Misc., I. 404f.
" Houck gives the names of eighteen delegates who signed the petition dated
September 29, 1804. This authority seems to have combined the names of all
the delegates who signed this petition with the two new members who signed the
"declaration" of September 30, 1804. Cf. Houck, Hist. Mo., II. 391.

Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 21
one originally prepared. No early public document of Missouri
down to the framing of Missouri's first constitution in 1820
and the Solemn Public Act of Missouri's First Legi'slature in
1821, has a more interesting history than this one. It involved
the first successful wire-pulling in Missouri history, and had it
not been for an unnamed school-master, might have resulted
very disastrously for Missouri. The inner history of this
remarkable document is set forth in a letter of Rufus Easton,
dated at St. Louis January 17, 1805, to President Jefferson. He
wrote that immediately after the Act of Congress of 1804 be
came known in Missouri, about twenty of the inhabitants of
St. Louis assembled with a view to appoint a committee which
was to call a convention of delegates from the different districts,
and that this convention was to form a plan of government
for upper Louisiana.^' The whole affair seems to have been
arranged by the French inhabitants, as no American was in
vited, although there was a number of prominent ones here.
It was so slated that a majority of the delegates to be selected
was to be of the French interest by having them elected by
committees who in turn were chosen principally by French
villages. How successfully the plan worked is evident from
the result of the election. Of the sixteen signers of the "pe
tition," seven were Americans and nine Frenchmen; and of the
total eighteen signers of both documents, nine were Americans
and nine Frenchmen. The name of Stephen Byrd, who was a
delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1820, appears in
the "declaration" as a delegate from Cape Girardeau. Eligius
Fromentin, one of the delegates from New Madrid, seems to
have been the framer of the "petition," as he is credited with
being the most learned. In 1812 this man was one of the first
United States Senators from the State of Louisiana. Prac
tically all the French and American delegates were men of
wealth and held large land tracts, and this placed them in perfect
accord regarding the Spanish land grants.^*

" Op. cit. Easton said that these twenty inhabitants met on April 2, 1804,
to peruse the bill of Congress of March 26. The date of this meeting, as given,
may be correct, but, if so, it was the proposed bill that was perused, since the
law of March 26 could not have reached St. Louis by April 2.
•-' Houck, Hist. Mo., II. 39H.

22 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
The original petition drafted by this convention recom
mended in reality a "gouvernement militaire." It provided
that they have a Governor residing in the territory possessing
both civil and military jurisdiction; that there be Commandants
for each district possessing like powers, with an appeal to the
Governor in certain cases; that there be no trials by jury "except
in such cases as in the opinion of the Governor or Commodant
justice should absolutely require it for special cause to be
shown;" and that the practice of lawyers be entirely prohibited.
It compared the Governor and Judges of the Indiana Territory
to "foreign Bashaws — to Pro-praetors and Pro-Consuls under
the more modest name of Governor and judges sent here to
rule over the people and to write liberty as had been done in
Venice upon our prison walls — ;" and declared that the treaty
of cession had been broken; and "a motion was made by one of
the members to call upon the Emperor of France thro' his
Ministers to enforce a fuUfillment."
This draft of the petition was presented to Captain Stoddard,
who made several slight changes in it so as to obtain for it a
reading in Congress. It was then again considered by the
convention and singularly failed to pass. Easton gives the fol
lowing reason for this failure: "But for a person who resided
some years within the United States in character of a school
master who understands the French language, catching at the
popular declamation of some members of Congress — Governed
by the principles advanced in the memorial of Orleans and
fired with ambition to distinguish himself in the political world
this original plan would not have been changed — The flame of
his eloquence and unparallelled knowledge of American politics
changed the tone to the whole system and the plan was to ridi
cule the Majority of Congress for their professions of Repub
licanism and boasted love of liberty — ." ^^
After the petition had been changed to its present and final
form, it was entrusted to Chouteau to take to Washington.
There is little doubt that the wealthy French inhabitants fav-

" Baston's Letter, op. cit. Cf, also Portier, Hist. La., III. 16f., and Am. State
Papers, Misc., I. 396fl.
After careful searching we have been unable to ascertain who this unique
school-master was.

Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 23
ored a military government without civil law and lawyers.
Chouteau had presented his views for such a government to
Gallatin during the previous summer of 1804, when many of
the leading Frenchmen of Louisiana District were in Washington.
Gallatin wrote to President Jefferson regarding this interview
with Chouteau, and stated, that while he respected the zeal and
ability of the Frenchman, he did not endorse his views and those
of his business associates. It is by no means improbable that
when Chouteau carried this democratic petition of September,
1804, to Washington, he still pleaded for the military system.
The democratic ideals of Jefferson, however, made this plea
a vain one, and nothing more was heard of the "gouvernement
militaire." =«

" Houck, Hist. Mo., II. 400.
The foUowing valuable letter is copied from note No. 163, p. 355, vol. II.,
of Eobinson, Louisiana, 1785-1807: "The following extract from a letter (en
titled Separate observations") dated St. Louis, November 4, 1804 (conserved in
the Bureau of Eolls and Library, Department of State, Territorial Papers, vol.
I.. "Louisiana"), shows conditions in Upper Louisiana or Louisiana Territory:
"I conceive it may not be improper to mention some circumstances con
cerning the Petition from the Committee held in September last at this Place,
before my arrival, for tho' I have not read that Memorial I have heard it much
spoken of, and I have reason to think a Paper, said to be a copy of it, may have
been sent to the public printer for insertion, in which case it will be found diflerent
from the original, that pretended having been taken from the first draft of it before
its ultimate correction. It seems the act of Congress of March last concerning
Louisiana created some discontent in the minds of People here, they wished and
expected a Government of their own. It hurt their pride to be made dependent
on Indiana for offlcers and Laws, because their population and territory are much
more extensive than those of their neighbors. They conceived the act of Congress
infringed some of the Eights insured to them by the Treaty, placing them in a
more degraded situation than other territories of the United States. They
formed a Convention in which a Committee was chosen to draw up a Petition
to Congress. The Member who made the sketch of the Memorial was sent out
before my arrival and I have not seen him, but I am told he is a man of warm
passions and I conceive him to be probably of a character such as I have known
in the French Revolution, who aUowed their exalted Ideas to run away with their
understanding and could not distinguish between the true principles of liberty,
and those leading to Anarchy and despotism . . I have a particular satisfaction
at the time iu saying that the inhabitants are much pleased with Govr. Harrison
now here. His affability and easy access form a strong contrast with what they
had been accustomed to — aU the disinterested sensible men ainong them are glad
of the change of Government, but there are some, as you will easily beUeve who
have prejudices which time and experience will wipe away — there are others who
.enjoyed, or were directly concerned in, extensive privileges, or had certain ad
vantages which attached them to the former system. I am speaking of the French
part of the inhabitants, whose sentiments I know best by their considering me as
one of themselves on account of the language and my very long residence in
Prance. The appearance of hostilities — an idea many of them have of this part

24 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Within two months after this first petition had been pre
sented to Congress, an act was passed on March 3, 1805, which
remedied most of the objections and granted some of the re
quests set forth by the St. Louis convention of September,
1804.2' It was rather satisfactory to the French inhabitants,
as it established a separate centralized form of government.
The act provided : (1) that the "District of Louisiana" be changed
to the "Territory of Louisiana;" (2) that this territory be sep
arated from the government of Indiana territory; and (3) that
a new government of the Territory of Louisiana be established.
As Missouri by this act became a territory of the lowest grade
and from this stage gradually advanced to statehood, it is a
matter of importance to notice the plan of government out
lined by this second organic act of Congress relating to Mis
souri'. The executive power was lodged in the hands of the Gov
ernor, whose tenure was appointive by the President of the
United States, whose term was three years, and who must
reside in the territory. His powers were wide, being both
executive and legislative in their scope. He was commander
of the militia, superintendent ex-officio of Indian affairs, had the
power of appointment and command of all officers in militia
below the rank of general officers, could grant pardons and
reprieves under certain limitations, could divide the territory
into districts where the Indian titles were extinct, and appoint
magistrates for civil and military purposes. Associated with
the Governor was a Secretary, whose duties were clerical, and
who became governor when that office was vacant. His term

of the country being about to be receded to that nation for the Floridas, are topics
often brought forward which have tended to show me the real inclinations of
some and they open their minds with less reserve by not considering me in the
Ught of a stranger." — Letter unsigned — "Prom a man who went up Mississippi
to become acquainted with Peltry trade."
The dlsUke of lawyers on the part of the French inhabitants is also seen in
the Historical and Political Refiections on Louisiana by Paul AUiot. (Eobertson,
op. cit., I. 135, 137.) Speaking of St. Louis that physician says: — "The magis
trate who renders justice does not molest or persecute any citizen. He Is a father
whose entrails are at aU times open to his children." "None of those blood
suckers known under the names of baiUfls, lawyers, and soUcitors are seen there."
(This was written before the transfer in 1803.) (Cf. ibid., II. 319.)
" Stat, at Large, II. 331f. Passed at second session of Eighth Congress,
March 3, 1805, and went into effect July 4, 1805.

Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 25
was four years, and he was also required to live in the territory.
His tenure was the same as that of the Governor.
The legislative power was vested in the Governor and the
three territorial Judges, or a majority of them. This body
or Legislative Council had power to establish inferior tribunals
and prescribe their duties. It was empowered to make all
laws conducive to the good government of the inhabitants of
the territory provided no law should be enacted inconsistent
with the Constitution and Laws of the United States or abridg
ing the religious freedom of the inhabitants or dispensing with
trial by jury in both civil and criminal cases under certain
regulations. All laws passed by this council were subject to
the ratification of the President and Congress.
The judicial power was vested in three Judges appointed
by the President for four years, and in such inferior tribunals
as might be established by the Legislative Council. The three
Judges or any two of them were to hold two courts annually
in the Territory and to have the same jurisdiction as that
formerly held by the Judges of Indiana Territory.
The compensation for the five foregoing officers was the
same as obtained in Indiana Territory. All were required to
take an oath of allegiance to the United States. It was ex
pressly provided that all existing laws were to remain in force
until modified.
Such are the general provisions of this act. It did much
to mollify the inhabitants of Upper Louisiana, and, although
not granting them the elective tenure nor a delegate in Con
gress, it was far more satisfactory than the previous act.
They now had a territory and a government that were not
united to or under any other subdivision of the United States,
and, although their new officials were appointed in Washing
ton, and subject in every express way to the national govern
ment, still they were required to reside in the territory, and this
alone was worth a great deal to the inhabitants of a pioneer
country where distance played such an important part in law
administration .
During the following half decade the Territory of Louis
iana made rapid strides in development. The increase of popu-

26 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
lation alone justified a change in the governmental machinery
provided for by the act of 1805. The population of the terri
tory in 1810 had risen to 19,976, being distributed among the
five districts as follows: Cape Girardeau, 3,888; New Madrid,
2,296; St. Charles, 3,505; Ste. Genevieve, 4,620; and St. Louis,
5,667.2^ This remarkable growth in population naturally
created a desire for a higher grade of territorial government.
It was the wish of a large majority of inhabitants of this terri
tory that the American policy of self-government be applied
to them. This wish was soon revealed in the numerous peti
tions presented to Congress on that subject. Never in the
history of Missouri, during neither the French, Spanish, Ameri
can, Territorial, nor State Period, have her inhabitants framed,
signed, and presented so many petitions to Congress as issued
from the Territory of Louisiana from 1810 to 1812 inclusive.
But, to us even this seems less remarkable than is the failure
heretofore of every writer on Missouri history to notice a single
petition of that time. This silence can be construed only as
the result of a lack of information, since the greatest importance
always attaches to those documents that reflect the sentiment
of so large a district of people in regard to a change in their
organic law. At least fifteen of these petitions appeared, twelve
of which are still in existence. These twelve requested that the
Territory of Louisiana be raised from a territory of the first to
one of the second grade. One of the other petitions, very
significantly, prayed that no alteration be made in the form of
government.^'

'« U. S. Census. 1900. Pop., I. 27f.
'¦ Six hundred and thirty-six signatures are attached to five of these petitions,
the number of signatures on the other seven petitions were not counted. These
petitions were first noticed by us in the Annals of Congress. We had always
wondered at the silence of Missouri historians on this point, and could hardly
be convinced that Missouri became a territory of the second grade without there
having been an application for same on the part of the inhabitants of Louisiana
Territory. An examination of the Annals proved our conclusion to be correct.
Mr. Parker's Calendar of Papers in Washington Archives relating to the Territories
of ihe United States (Carnegie Institution, 1911) showed that these petitions were
still in existence. FinaUy, after having made futile appUcation to the House
Librarian we Interested Dr. J. Franklin Jameson who at our request placed Dr.
N. D. Mereness on the trial of these documents. Dr. Mereness not only located
all of these petitions but also made copies of same. These copies are now in the
library of The State Hist. Soc. of Mo. The original documents are still preserved
in the House Files in Washington, D. C.

Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 27
On January 6, 1810, there was presented to Congress "a
petition of sundry inhabitants of the Territory of Louisiana,
praying that the second grade of Territorial Government may
be established in said Territory." This was probably one of
the first of these petitions and, we think, was drawn up and
signed in 1809. It based its request for a higher grade of
territorial government on the treaty of cession, on the unsatis
factory exercise of both legislative and judicial powers when
vested in the same persons, and on the large size of the militia
in the Territory of Louisiana compared with the militia in either
Indiana or Mississippi territories. This petition was referred
to a committee on January 9, 1810, which reported, on January
22d, a bill "further to provide for the government of the Territory
of Louisiana." This bill after its second reading was referred
to the Committee of the whole, in which it was not brought up
during that session.^" On January 15, 1810, an exact copy of

"Annals of Congress, I. 1157. 1253. Following is a copy of this petition
as found in the House Files by Dr. Mereness:
[Dec. 1809?] Petition of sundry inhabitants of the territory of Louisiana —
Eeferred Jan. 9th, 1810. [No. 3438 in Parker.)
[This petition is as follows:] To the honble the Sen. and Ho. of Reps, of the
U. S., in Cong, assembled
The petition of the undersigned inhabitants of the Territory of La., most
respectfully sheweth.
That they have waited with anxious but silent expectation for the arrival
of that period, when pursuance of the treaty by which Louisiana was ceded to
the United States, they are to be admitted "accordmg to the principles of the
federal constitution, to the enjoyment of aU the rights, advantages and Immunities
of Citizens of the United States." These rights they do humbly conceive cannot
be enjoyed while the judicial and legislative powers are vested in the same persons.
Where powers are combined which the constitution requires should be seperate.
[sic] and where the maker of laws, is also obliged to expound, and to decide upon
them. Your petitioners are fully impressed with the idea that legislative powers,
are never better, nor more satisfactorily exercised than when committed to those
persons who are elected for that purpose by the people themselves, whose con
duct must be regulated by those very laws thus made. The inhabitants of the
territory of Orleans, have already obtained those rights which your petitioners
now ask, and to which they deem themselves also entitled. The last returns of
the militia of this territory will be found to exceed those of the Indiana and
Mississippi territory, and the number is daily increased by rapid emigrations
to this territory. Confiding therefore, in the justice and wisdom of your hon6(e
bodies, they most respectfuUy ask, that a law may be passed for enabling the in
habitants of this territory to have and enjoy the rights and privileges consequent
upon a second grade of ter! gov't, and that the same may be established in this
territory. And your petltrs as in duty bound will ever pray. [This petitn is printed]
[76 signatures]

28 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
the foregoing petition was referred in the House. This latter
document had attached to it about two hundred and seventy-
three signatures, the former had seventy-six.'^ On February 22,
1810, several petitions to Congress "from a number of the in
habitants of the Territory of Louisiana" were presented to the
Senate. Their purpose and wording were, we infer, the same
as the other two presented to the House. '^ Another duplicate
petition, of this year, bearing only nine signatures was pre
sented to the House,'' but nothing was accomplished by any
of these at this time.
At the third session of the Eleventh Congress, on January
3, 1811, a committee, appointed by the House on December 11,
1810, "presented a bill further providing for the government of
the Territory of Louisiana." After a second reading the bill
was lost in the Committee of the Whole and this Congress
expired without passing an act on this matter.^*
During the summer of 1811 numerous petitions of this
kind were framed and signed in Louisiana Territory. Some of
these originated in the Arkansas country and others in that
part that lies within the present boundaries of Missouri. They
were all similar in tone and argument to the 1810 petitions.
The desire for a second grade of territorial government was
strong, and this wish was strengthened by the still unsettled or
unsatisfactorily settled condition of the land claims. The in
habitants of Louisiana Territory not only wanted a voice in
their territorial or local government, but were equally desirous
of having their wishes voiced in Congress by a regularly elected
territorial delegate.'^ Not only were many of these petitions

" Ibid. Found in House Piles.
" Ibid, p. 578.
" Ibid. Found in House FUes.
••Annals of Congress, 3d Sess., Uth Cong. (1810-11), p. 486.
" Sometime during the session of 1811-12 flve petitions were presented to
the House. Each of the flve is as foUows according to Dr. N. D. Mereness:
[Eeferred 1811-12.] Each of the "five petitions" Usted by Parker under
No. 3468 is in part as foUows: To the Honble the seu. & Ho of Eeps — Sheweth;
That convinced as well of their rights in pursuance of the treaty which ceded La.
to the U. S., to be admitted "according to the principles of the federal constitu
tion, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of the citizens
of the United States," as of the advantages resulting from representative govern
ment, which rights and advantages have not been extended to them. They hope
indeed, that as a free people, so far as the policy of territorial government will

Constitutional History During Territorial Period, 29
presented to the twelfth Congress at its first session but on
December 27, 1811, there was also presented to the House "a
certified copy of a presentment by the grand jury of the 'District
of St. Charles,' in said Territory, representing that the second
grade of Territorial government ought to be extended to the
Territory; that the judges of the general court ought to reside
in the Territory; and that further and equitable provisions

admit, they may have a partial voice in the government which they support.
Their sister territories of Orleans, Mississippi and Indiana, are fast approaching
to political manhood, under the fostering hand of the General Government;
while La. with a large and fast Increasing population have not been admitted to
the enjoyment of the same poUtical blessings; aU the powers of the govemment,
as well executive and legislative, as legislative and judicial, are blended together,
not only contrary to the treaty and "Federal Constitution," but also the political
safety and happiness of the people. A large majority of your petitioners depend
on agriculture for support, whose claims to land form the principal hope of them
selves and families, and more than two-thirds of their claims have been rejected
by the board of commissrs; from whose official representations they have Uttle
to hope, and much prejudice to fear; for these reasons which are all important
to your petitioners, they now most respectfiUly ask of your honS^e body the
passage of a law, which will admit them into what is denominated the second
grade of territorial govt, (provided no better can be devised) which entitle them
to a delegate in Congress by whom they can make known their unfortunate sit
uation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. [Found in House
Files.] Another petition referred December 27, 1811, is an exact copy of the above
(House Files, Parker, op. cit.. No. 3480.); another duplicate was read January
6, 1812, (Senate Piles, Parker, op. cil.. No. 3481.) ; and another bearing one hundred
and ninety signatures was also presented to Congress. (House Piles, Parker, op.
cit.. No. 3487.) The foUowing petition, dated Arkansas, 9th Sept. 1811, was
referred Dec. 7, 1811: —
Petition (dated Arkansas, 9th Septr 1811) for the Second grade of Govern
ment. — No. 3472 in Parker — Eeferred Dec. 7, 1811 to Comee of the whole House
on the biU for the Govt of said Territory. Bill postponed in the Senate April
22, 1812. This petitn is as foUows: To the Honft^e — The Petition of the undersigned
Inhabitants of the Territory of La. EespectfuUy sheweth: That convinced as
well of their rights (in pursuance of the Treaty which ceded La. [sic] to th[el
U. S.) to be admitted according to the Principals of the Federal Constitution to
the enjoyment of aU the rights, advantages, and immunities of Citizens [o]f the
U. S. — as of the advantages resulting from a representative Gov't, which Rights
and Advantages have not been extended to them — they hope indeed that as a
free People so far as the PoUcy of Terl Gov't wiU admit they may have a Partial
Voice in the Govt wch [which] they support. Their sister Territories of Orleans,
Mississippi and Indiana are fast approaching to Political Manhood, under the
Fostering hand of the Gen'l Gov't, while La. with a large and fast increasing
Population, has not been admitted to the enjoyment of the same Political blessing.
— all the Powers of the Gov't as well Executive and legislative, as Legislative and
Judicial are blended together not only Contrary to the Treaty and Federal Con
stitution but also to the poUtical safety and happiness of the People.
A large majority of your Petitioners depend on Agriculture for support
whose claims to lands form the Principal hope of themselves and famUies and more

30 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
ought to be made in favor of rejected land claims." '^ These
were referred and undoubtedly were of the greatest influence in
the final passage of the law of June 4, 1812.
Although the local pressure on Congress favoring a higher
grade of territorial government in Louisiana Territory was
strong, we are hardly surprised to discover some undercurrent
of opinion in this district that opposed raising the status of
the territory. We have noticed how the act of 1805 was satis
factory to most of the inhabitants of Upper Louisiana especially
to the French portion, and also why they preferred a centralized
form of government. Wherever the French influence was strong
whether in Indiana Territory, Louisiana Territory, or the Terri
tory of Orleans, the preference of that race has been for few
officials, concentration of power in the hands of a few, and either
an indifference or opposition to self-government unless some
vital problem could be solved by no other means.'' In Louis
iana Territory the special problem that concerned many, includ
ing both French and American inhabitants, was the land claim
or land grant problem. Many claims had not been settled
and many had been refused. The settlers, both old and new,
thought that more lenient laws regulating these claims would be
passed if only the Territory had a Delegate in Congress. There
was also a sincere, strong sentiment for self-government in
Louisiana Territory, but we believe that the opposition to this
self-government or representative government would have been

than two thirds [o]f their just Claims have been rejected by th [e] board of Com
missioners from whose official Eepresentations they have Uttle to hope.
Por these reasons wch are all Important to your Petitioners they now most
respectfully ask of your Honble body, the Passage of a Law wch wUl admit them
into what is denominated the second grade of TerZ Govt, wch will entitle them to
a delegate in Cong, by whom they may make known their unfortunate situation —
and your Petltrs as in duty bound wiU ever Pray. [88 signatures. The original
of this petitn is not printed. Pound in House Files]
Cf. also Annals of Congress, p. 557.
•* Annals of Congress, I. &8ltJ.
" Indiana Territory in 1800 was largely French. They cared nothing for
self-government. The influx of American settlers created a desire for a higher
grade of territorial government. The French joined in this demand for self-
government since through it they could make slavery more secure, which was a
great object to be attained owing to the provisions of the Northwest Ordinance
on that point. Cf. also Webster, Homer J., William Henry Harrison's Admin
istration of Indiana Territory, in Ind. Hist. Soc. Pub., IV. 202ff. Cf. Chapter
VI of this work on the pecuUar sentiment exhibited in Orleans Territory on the
eve of framing a State Constitution.

Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 31
stronger than it was had not there been pressing for settle
ment hundreds of land claims. At all events we have record of
one remonstrance and petition being presented to Congress that
opposed a change in government. On December 7, 1811, there
was presented to the House a remonstrance and petition of
sundry inhabitants of St. Louis "stating the many injuries and
inconveniences which would result from a change in their form
of government, and praying that no alteration may be made
in their said form of government." '* This was referred to a
committee from which it was never reported. The demand of
the inhabitants of Louisiana for the higher grade of territorial
government had become too insistent for Congress to longer
delay. In the year 1812 affairs reached a focus that made neces
sary at least some kind of action. The Territory of Orleans
was admitted into the Union April 8, 1812, under the name of
the State of Louisiana. This made expedient, though not es
sential, as some authorities have supposed, a change in name of
the Territory of Louisiana. Action was taken by Congress,
and on June 4, 1812, a law was passed changing the name of
the Territory of Louisiana to the Territory of Missouri." It
was this law which gave to Missouri her present name; and it
is very probable that had the Territory of Orleans taken the
name of State of Orleans on its admission into the Union, then
the Territory of Louisiana would have retained its name and
in 1821 would have been admitted as the State of Louisiana.
This act of June 4, 1812, raised Missouri to the second grade of
territories and not only gave the inhabitants control of the
lower house of the Legislature through the elective tenure and
the election of a Delegate to Congress but also provided in
section fourteen for a bill of rights.*"
The government provided for by this act was more com
plex in character that that in the act of 1805. The executive
authority was still vested in a Governor whose term, tenure,
and powers were the same as before, except that he had some

" Abridg. of Debates of Cong., IV. 434.
"Stat, at Large, II. 743-747; Cf. also Mo. Ter. Laws, I. 8-13.
' » There are sixteen sections in this law, but they will not be taken up here
in detail.

32 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
enumerated powers, including that of convening the legislature
on "extraordinary occasions." His veto power was absolute.
No change was made in the term, tenure, and duties of the
Secretary. It was in the legislative branch of the new government
that the greatest changes are noticed. The legislative power
was vested in a bicameral body called the "general assembly."
This was composed of a Legislative Council and a House of
Representatives. The former consisted of nine members, five
making a quorum, appointed for five years by the President of
the United States from a list of eighteen persons made by the
territorial House of Representatives. Provision was made for
filling vacancies by the President appointing one of two persons
nominated by the lower house. Their qualifications were: that
they should have resided in the territory for at least one year
preceding appointment; that they should be at least twenty-
five years of age; that they should have property of at least
two hundred acres in the territory. They were disqualified
from holding any other office of profit under the territorial
government except that of justice of the peace. It was in the
house of Representatives that the greatest innovation was
made. This body was composed of representatives elected
for two years by the people of the territory. The appointment
was on the basis of one member to every five hundred free,
white, male inhabitants until the number of representatives
reached twenty-five, when the ratio was left under the regula
tion of the General Assembly. The qualifications for repre
sentatives were lower in nearly every respect than for members
of the Council: the age qualification was twenty -one years;
the residence qualification was the same as in the case of mem
bers of the Council; and the property qualification required one
to be a freeholder in the county from which he was elected.
Vacancies were filled by a new county election on writ of the
Governor. Annual meetings of the General Assembly were
provided for. The place of meeting was at St. Louis, and the
time the first Monday in December unless the General Assembly
set a different date. The Governor was empowered to lay off

Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 33
the territory into convenient counties for the election of thirteen
representatives .
The electors of representatives consisted of all the free,
white, male citizens of the United States who were twenty-one
years of age, had resided in the territory twelve months before
the election, and had paid a territorial or county tax assessment
made at least six months before the election. It was provided
in the act of 1812 that all free, white, male persons who were
inhabitants of Louisiana on December 20, 1803, and all free,
white, male citizens of the United States who had immigrated
to Louisiana since December 20, 1803, or who might hereafter
do so, if otherwise qualified, could hold any office of honor, trust
or profit in the territory under the United States or the Territory,
and vote for members of the General Assembly and a Delegate
to Congress during the temporary government provided for by
that act.
The powers of the General Assembly were large, comprising
the power to make laws, civil and criminal; to establish inferior
courts and prescribe their jurisdiction; to define the powers and
duties of the justices of the peace and other civil officers of the
territory; to regulate and fix fees, etc. There were certain
express limitations placed on their power, however, that are
important to notice. All bills had to be passed by a majority
of each house and receive the approbation (signature) of the
governor. They were by implication prohibited from passing
any acts which would be inconsistent with the large number of
privileges and rights reserved to the people and enumerated at
some length in section fourteen of the law. This section four
teen is a very interesting paragraph, as it is the first bill of rights
that Missourians ever had excepting those guarantees in the
United States Constitution and is an epitome of the one included
in the constitution of 1820. The General Assembly was also
prohibited by express provision from interfering with the pri
mary disposal of the soil of the United States, etc., and from
levying any tax or impost on the navigable waters in or touching
the territory. The judiciary was composed of a Superior Court, inferior
courts and courts of justices of the peace. The Superior Court
M S— 3

34 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
alone was set forth in detail, the others being left under the
regulation of the General Assembly and Governor. This court
was the same in composition and in term and tenure of members
as that provided for in the act of 1805. Certain regulations were
provided as regards its jurisdiction, and power was granted it
and the inferior courts to appoint their clerks.
Some miscellaneous provisions were also set forth that are
important. All officials were required to take an oath to sup
port the Constitution of the United States and discharge faith
fully the duties of their office. The citizens of the territory
were given the right to elect one Delegate to Congress. Schools
and education were urged, and encouragement and aid promised
from the United States lands in the Territory. It was provided
that the acts of 1804 and 1805 when inconsistent with this act
were repealed.
Pursuant to the power granted him in the seventh section
of the act of 1812, Benjamin Howard, Governor of the Territory
of Louisiana, by proclamation issued October 1, 1812, divided
the new Territory of Missouri into the five counties of St.
Charles, St. Louis, Ste. Genevieve, Cape Girardeau, and New
Madrid, and gave them their boundaries.*! Provision was made
for the election from these counties of territorial representatives
to the General Assembly and also a Delegate to Congress.
Appended to this proclamation was a statement setting forth
the qualifications of representatives and electors — which was
taken from the act of Congress of June 4, 1812. Thus was set
in working the new government of the Territory of Missouri.
An attempt was made to amend the law of 1812, and on
January 7, 1813, on motion of Mr. Hempstead (of Missouri) a
committee was appointed by the House of Representatives "to
inquire if any, and if any what, amendments are necessary to be
made" to that act.*^ On January 29, 1813, this committee
reported and recommended no alterations.*' The problem sug
gested to the committee was to settle the doubts that some
entertained as to whether Missouri's Territorial Delegate to

•' Am. Slate Papers, Misc., II. 202f ; Scharf, op. cil., I. 557f.
" Annals of Congress, p. 618.
" Ibid., pp. 929f ; Am. Stale Papers, Misc., II. 201f.

Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 35
Congress, who had been elected on November 2, 1812, in pur
suance of the act of Congress of that year, could hold his seat
after March 3, 1813. The committee decided that as he was
elected for two years, he could hold his seat for that time, and
that no alteration in the law of 1812 was necessary, as it appeared
perfectly clear on this point.
Population kept increasing rapidly in Missouri. Lawrence
county was established by the Territorial Legislature January
15, 1815,** and just a little over a year later Howard county, the
"mother of counties" and one of the empire counties of Missouri,
was erected by act of January 23, 1816.*^ On January 21, 1816,
on motion of Mr. Easton in the House of Representatives, the
Committee on the Judiciary was instructed to inquire if any,
and what, alterations were necessary to be made in the act
entitled "An act providing for the government of the Territory
of Missouri" approved June 4, 1812." *'^ This committee on
March 6, 1816, reported a bill to alter certain parts of the act
of 1812, which without any amendment finally became the
organic act of Congress of April 29, 1816, by which Missouri
became a territory of the highest grade.*' By this law, the
elective tenure was also applied to the Legislative Council, one
member being elected from each county. The term was reduced
to two years and qualifications remained the same as in the act
of 1812. A majority of the members constituted a quorum.
The regular sessions of the General Assembly were changed
from annual to biennial sessions. Everything else of the act
of 1812 remained unchanged except the provisions relating to
the judiciary. It was the provisions in this act of 1816 relating
to the judiciary that was its most objectionable feature to Mis
sourians, as is expressly set forth in the very earliest petitions
for statehood in 1817.*^ The General Assembly was authorized
to require the judges of the superior court to hold superior and
circuit courts; to appoint the times and places for the same;
and to make rules and regulations regarding these courts. The

" Mo. Ter. Laws, pp. 354fl.
" Ibid., pp. 460fl.
" Annals of Congress, pp. 1047, 1049, 1358, 1362.
" Stat, at Large, II. 328; Mo. Ter. Laws, p. 14.
" This wiU receive further consideration in the chapter following.

36 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
circuit court was to be composed of one of the said judges and
to have jurisdiction in all criminal cases, exclusive original
jurisdiction in capital cases, and original jurisdiction in all civil
cases of .1100.00 value or over. The superior and circuit courts
were to possess chancery powers as well as common law juris
diction in all civil cases, provided that in matters of law and
equity, in all cases, appeal lay from the circuit courts to the
superior court of the territory.
The year following this law of Congress of 1816, which
made Missouri a territory of the highest rank, saw the inhabit
ants here petitioning Congress for that greatest of all boons —
the privilege of statehood. It will be our purpose in the next
chapter to give, in the first place, a short history of these efforts
on the part of Missouri's pioneers to obtain permission of the
National Legislature to frame a state constitution; and, in the
second, to sketch the struggle in Congress itself over this ques
tion from 1818 to 1820. It is hardly an exaggeration to say
that seldom in the history of this nation since the adoption of
the Constitution has there been a purely domestic question,
except of course the Civil War of 1861-65, that has so stirred the
country from border to border; has been so ominous in so many
of its phases; that for so many months literally shook the foun
dations of the United States and brought forth declarations
and prophecies of the most calamitous character from the
mouths and pens of men who even today rank foremost in the
galaxy of American Statesmen and authors, as the famous
Missouri Question. It will not, however, be our purpose in
this book to do more than merely give a summary of that ques
tion as it was acted upon by Congress.

CHAPTER II.
MISSOURI PETITIONS FOR STATEHOOD AND THE
STRUGGLE IN CONGRESS
The earliest agitation for the admission of Missouri as a
State began in the latter part of 1817.! After the war of 1812
the population of Missouri grew rapidly, and corresponding
with this growth the desire of the people for an independent
State government became strong.^ In the fall of 1817 this
desire for statehood found expression in a number of memorials
addressed to Congress and signed by the Missouri inhabitants,
acting purely in their capacity as citizens. It is certain that
there were a number of these petitions; even today there are
two in existence.'

' Scharf, op. cit., I. 561. In note one on this page appears the following
extract from the Missouri Gazette (St. Louis) dated October 11. 1817: "We
have seen in the last Emigrant the copy of a petition stated to be 'The Memorial
of the Citizens of Missouri Territory.' praying to be admitted into the Union of
States within certain limits." (Note: The Western Emigrant was a newspaper
published in St. Louis in 1817, succeeding the Western Journal, which began
pubUcation in 1815. Later it changed its name again and became known as the
St. Louis Enquirer.)
There is no mention of a petition earlier than 1817 by any of the writers of
Missouri or of St. Louis history, such as Switzler, Davis and Durie, Houck, Carr,
Eader, BiUon, and Scharf. Some of these faUed to notice the memorials of 1817,
but even Mr. Houck, who made a special study of this period, gives the date of
the earliest petition as 1817.
Copies of Eesolutions of the Missouri Territorial General Assembly to Con
gress, dated December 1815 and January 1816, are still in existence in the Bureau
of Bolls and Library, Department of State, Washington, D. C, but Mr. Tonner,
Chief of the Bureau, informs us that he has examined these resolutions and that
they do not refer to statehood, but to entirely different subjects. (Letter of Mr.
J. A. Tonner, January 29, 1914, in The State Historical Society of Missouri.)
Cf. also Parker, op. cit., p. 239.
» Houck. Hist. Mo., III. 243. As our references to Houck wiU hereafter be
entirely to his History of Missouri, we wiU refer to that work thus: Houck, op. cit.
During the war the tide of immigration into Missouri decreased in volume,
but after peace was proclaimed, the rush of settlers from Kentucky, Tennessee,
Virginia, and the Carolinas to that territory was greater than ever. (See Mis
souri Gazette, October 26, 1816.)
' We are certain that a number of these memorials were identical, and were
circulated over the entire territory. Internal criticism of these documents pro
duces several reasons which incline us to come to this conclusion: first, the two
existing memorials of 1817 are so worded as to have allowed any citizen of Mis
souri to sign thera, and consist of a comparatively brief printed petition with a
(37)

38 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
It is known that on January 8, 1818, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives of Congress presented "petitions"
from sundry inhabitants of Missouri Territory, praying that
the said Territory might be erected into a State and admitted
into the Union on an equal footing with the original States;*
that on February 2, 1818, John Scott, Missouri's Delegate to
Congress, presented a similar petition from the inhabitants of
Missouri Territory;^ and on March 16, 1818, Scott again pre
sented "petitions" of sundry inhabitants of Missouri Territory,
praying for admission, which, together with the "petitions" of
a similar nature, "heretofore presented at the present session,"
were referred to a select committee composed of seven men,
Scott being chairman.* This committee, on April 3, 1818, re
ported to the House a bill to authorize the people of the Missouri
Territory to form a Constitution and State government, and for
the admission of such State into the union, etc. This bill was
read twice and committed to a Committee of the Whole, where it
lodged during that session of the Fifteenth Congress.'
The two memorials of 1817 still in existence are valuable
and interesting documents. The subject matter of the one in
the Library of Congress is identical with the one in the library
of The State Historical Society of Missouri, and is signed by
sixty-eight persons, most of whom lived in Washington county,
Missouri.* Two of these sixty-eight names appear among the
sixty-nine names attached to the other memorial. Among the
former, appears the signature of John Rice Jones; on the other,

smaU blank below for signatures (au additional sheet of paper covered with sig
natures is attached to the one in The State Historical Society of Missouri) ; second,
on the back of the one in The State Historical Society of Missouri is written in
script, "No. 5," and a little to the right of this is written, "69." The "No. 5"
would perhaps have little significance if It were not for the "69." This memorial
was signed by sixty-nine persons, and it is not improbable that this petition was
the flfth in circulation.
' Annals of Congress, I. 591. These were laid on the table.
' Ibid., p. 840. This also was laid on the table.
« Ibid., II. 1391. Mr. Scott also presented a petition of sundry inhabitants
of the southern part of the Territory of Missouri, praying for a division of the
said territory, which was referred to the same committee. Ibid., p. 1392.
' Ibid., p. 1672.
¦ Houck. op. cit.. III. 245. Mr. Farnum. Secretary to the Librarian of Con
gress, in a letter to the author dated January 23. 1914, stated that the one in that
Library has sixty-eight manuscript signatures; Houck, idem, says sixty-seven.

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 39
appears that of John Hutchings. Both of these men were later
delegates from Washington county to the first constitutional
convention of 1820. The first eighteen signatures of the sixty-
nine are included in an ink brace, and written on the margin
of the page and within the brace are these words : ' 'All the Grand
Jury of the Circuit Court of Washington county October term,
1817." The entire document contains about seven hundred
and fifty words, and might naturally be divided into two parts.^
First are set forth Missouri's reasons for statehood, in
cluding the following: (a) the population of Missouri had
reached 40,000; Tennessee, Ohio and Mississippi had each been
admitted with a smaller population; (b) the treaty of cession
guaranteed statehood as soon as it could be "granted under the
principles of the Federal Constitution;" (c) Missouri's training
as a territory of the first and second class had covered a period
of thirteen years;!" ^^^ Missouri's loyalty to the Union had
been evinced during the War of 1812; (e) the evils of the terri
torial government were many, including (1) the denial of a vote
in Congress, although subject to the indirect taxation of that
body, (2) the absolute veto of the governor on the acts of the
territorial legislature, (3) the power of the superior court in
having primary and final jurisdiction in most civil and criminal
cases, and (4) the restricted powers of the territorial legislature
which were confined to the passage of local laws, "owing to the
paramount authority of Congress to legislate on the same sub
ject." Second are advanced arguments for the boundaries of Mis
souri, being the latitudes forty degrees and thirty-six degrees
thirty minutes on the north and south, and the Mississippi
River and the Osage boundary line on the east and west.!!
Two-thirds of the memorial is taken up with this subject of
boundaries and includes the following arguments : (a) the north-

• For a copy of the memorial in The State Historical Society of Missouri see
Appendix I.
'• Missouri had reaUy passed through the three grades of territorial organi
zation, besides having been under a military government and also under the gov
ernment of Indiana Territory.
'¦ Houck, op. cit., I. 3. "The Osage boundary on the west was a line extending
from Fort Osage north and south about twenty-four miles east of the mouth of
the Kansas river."

40 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
ern boundary would then correspond with that of Illinois terri
tory and "with the Indian boundary line near the mouth of the
River Des Moines;!^ (b) the southern boundary would "be an
extension of the line that divides Virginia and North Carolina,
Tennessee and Kentucky;" (c) it would leave Arkansas territory
a frontage of three and a half degrees on the Mississippi river,
give Missouri a like frontage and a medium depth of two hun
dred miles, and leave the same front "embracing the great
River St. Pierre" for a future State to the north of Missouri;
(d) these boundaries would "include all the country to the
north and west to which the Indian title" had been extinguished,
and also include "the body of the population;" (e) they would
"make the Missouri river the centre, and not the boundary of
the State" and thus unite in one whole the district to the north
and the south of that stream — a condition greatly desired by
choice and made doubly expedient by natural location and the
complementary resources of these two parts.
For the first time there is set forth in this petition any
intimation that the Missouri River had ever been thought of as
the northern boundary line of Missouri. That this had already
been rumoured, perhaps even advocated, is probable, judging
from the serious effort of this memorial to state the objections
of the inhabitants of Missouri to this plan. It is evident that
the memorialists feared Congress might select the Missouri river
as a natural boundary for the State, so they added that they de
precated "the idea of making the divisions of the States to cor
respond with the natural divisions of the country" and said,
"such divisions will tend to promote that tendency to separate,
which it is the policy of the union to counteract." It is also
interesting to notice the desire of the memorialists to provide
for Missouri a large frontage on the Mississippi River, and their
implied fear of having a large tract of desert land attached to
the new State, whereby a long State running east and west, but
narrow from north to south, would be formed.

" The memorial is uncertain in its statement of the northern boundary,
since paraUel forty degrees does not correspond to the Indian boundary line as
surveyed by John C. Sullivan in 1816, and as later decided in the United States
Supreme Court in 1849. Ibid., I. 14f.

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 41
We have already stated that little was accomplished re
garding a Missouri bill during the first session of the Fifteenth
Congress. However, it was really a matter for congratulation
that a Missouri statehood bill had been reported by a committee
of Congress so shortly after Missouri had become a territory of
the highest rank. This showed that the friends of Missouri
who were in Congress would not allow this subject to be kept
under cover.
The year 1818 brought forth the only memorial to Congress
praying for statehood that was ever adopted by the Territorial
Legislature of Missouri. Although in 1817 there were a number
of individual statehood petitions in circulation among the in
habitants in Missouri, there is no record of any in 1818, except the
memorial passed by the last Territorial Legislature of Missouri,
which adjourned in December of that year. During 1819 and
1820, however, there were a very large number of these peti
tions and remonstrances to Congress drawn by grand juries,
public meetings of citizens, and religious bodies in Missouri on
the question of statehood, and especially showing the sentiment
in Missouri at this time on the question of slavery and the
action being taken by Congress.!'
On November 13, 1818, the Territorial Legislature of Mis
souri adopted a memorial to Congress praying for statehood,
and during the same month they adopted a resolution on the
question of United States "donations and appropriations"
advantageous to the inhabitants of this State.!*
The memorial set forth two main arguments for statehood :
(1) that the population of the territory was nearly one hundred
thousand; and (2) that the limits of the territory were too
extensive for the efficient administration of government. Owing

I" These petitions of 1819 and 1820 being largely of the nature of protests
form part of the subject matter of the two foUowing chapters.
" "Memorial and Eesolutions of The Legislature of The Missouri Territory
and A Copy Of The Census of the FaU of 1817; Amount to 19,218 Males —
December 8, 1819. Eeferred to a Select Committee." One of the copies of
these documents as printed in Washington, 1819, a six page pamphlet for the use
of Congress, is in The State Historical Society of Missouri, and another copy of
the memorial may be found in the Am. State Papers, Misc., II. 557f. Another copy
of the memorial is in Abridg. of Debates of Cong., VI. 381. Houck, op. cit.. III.
245, gives the date of the adoption of the memorial as December, 1818; but
there is no doubt that this is not correct. See Appendix II for copy.

42 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
to both of these reasons, but especially the latter, it proposed a
division of the territory. Before taking up the consideration of
Missouri's population and the boundaries of the proposed
state — a short but rather involved study of itself — the rest of
the memorial will be analyzed. The memorialists stated that
although there were many grievances of which they might
complain, yet most of them were inseparable from a territorial
government and were not enumerated. They closed this docu
ment by again referring to the question of population which, in
the counties of New Madrid, Lawrence, Ste. Genevieve, Cape
Girardeau, Washington, St. Louis, St. Charles, and Howard
they stated was more than sufficient for admission as heretofore
required of other states admitted. The guarantee of admission,
as set forth in the treaty of cession, was mentioned, concerning
which they said, "much might have been claimed, in justice,"
etc. The memorial was signed by David Barton, as "Speaker
of the House of Representatives," its authenticity being attested
by him, and was also signed by Benjamin Emmons, "President
of the Legislative Council."
It is difficult to determine the exact figure for the population
of the entire Missouri Territory in 1818. Of course that given
in the memorial, one hundred thousand, which was undoubtedly
intended for the white and black population and excluding
Indians, was too high. The increase in population had un
doubtedly been remarkable, but it had hardly been great
enough to have warranted a jump from 19,976 in 1810 to this
figure in 1818, a period of only eight years.!* ^\^q greatest
increase had been in the Boone's Lick country which, in 1812,
numbered only one hundred and fifty families,!* and in 1817
contained 3,386 males.!' The Territorial census which was
taken in August and September of 1817, a copy of which was
transmitted to Congress by Missouri's delegate, John Scott,
gives the total white male population of the territory, exclusive

" U. S. Census, 1900. Pop. I. 27f.
>' Perkins and Peck, Western Annals, p. 750.
" Cf. Appendix II, which contains copy of census of 1817, and also BiUon,
Annals of St. Louis, 1804-1821, p. 51. BiUon makes the mistake of giving the
population of Missouri Territory by counties for 1818, which should have been
for 1817. The item on Missouri's population which appeared in Niles' Register
of May 16, 1818, is not trustworthy.

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 43
of Arkansas county, as 19,218. This would have made the
total white population for that year, excluding Arkansas,
between 35,000 and 38,000, which is probably nearly correct,
as we know that from 1817 to 1820 the immigration into Mis
souri was very heavy, and that the white population in 1820
was 55,988.!* It is quite probable that in 1818 the white popu
lation of Missouri Territory excluding Arkansas county was be
tween 41,000 and 44,000, besides a slave population of over
5,000.!^ This was undoubtedly a sufficient population for
statehood by comparison either with former states or even
with some admitted years after this.
The boundaries asked for Missouri in the legislature's memo
rial of 1818 included a far greater extent of territory than had
been requested in the people's memorial of 1817, and embraced
even a larger domain than lies within the present limits of this
State. They included all the territory within the present State,
except the two northwestern counties, Atchison and part of Holt;
a large irregular portion of the northeastern corner of the present
State of Arkansas, embracing over five thousand square miles;
and a long narrow strip of land on the west, about two hundred
miles long by sixty miles wide. If these boundaries had been
accepted by Congress they would have enlarged the present
State of Missouri from twenty-five to thirty per cent, or in round
numbers, about twenty thousand square miles, and today Mis
souri would contain nearly ninety thousand square miles.
The reasons advanced in the memorial of 1818 for asking
Congress to set such large limits for Missouri were: that the
fertile districts therein "susceptible of settlement, are small,
and are separated and detached from each other, at great dis
tances, by immense plains and barren tracts, which must for
ages remain waste and uninhabited;" that "these distant

i< U. S. Census, 1850, p. 665. Cf. also Niles' Register, XIII. 166. That
Missouri was being settled rapidly is shown by the fact that in December 1818,
the Territorial Legislature organized eight counties: Jefferson, December Sth,
(Mo. Ter. Laws, p. 554); FrankUn and Wayne, December 11th, (Ibid., pp. 562f.
567); Lincoln, Madison, Montgomery and Pike, December 14th, (Ibid., pp. 572,
576, 580, 585); and Cooper, December 17th (Ibid., p. 594). The white males
outnumbered the white females.
'• U. S. Census, 1850, p. 665. The free colored population of Missouri in
1820 was 347 and the slave 10,222.

44 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
frontier settlements, thus insulated, must ever be weak and
powerless in themselves; and can only become important and
respectable, by being united;" and that one of the objects of
the memorialists "is the formation of an effectual barrier for
the future against Indian excursions, by pushing forward, and
fostering a strong settlement on the little river Platte, to the
west, and on the Des Moines, to the north."
The most significant feature of the Legislature's memorial
of 1818 is the large boundary requested. Compared with the
popular petitions of the previous year the limits of the proposed
State had been extended on the north, west, and south. To
ascertain the reasons for this enlarged boundary in the 1818
petition, other than those reasons set forth in the memorial
itself, is an interesting problem from an antiquarian point of
view and an important one from its bearing on the history of
several states. We believe this request was the result of two
forces: (1) the general desire of the Legislature and the people
of Missouri Territory, excluding the Arkansas country, for a
large State; and (2) the special influence exerted by those indi
viduals and sections in Missouri Territory that had important
interests at stake in such an extended boundary line.
The large northern boundary asked for, which would have
included a portion of the southern part of the present State of
Iowa, was very probably sought by the Legislature owing to a
general desire for a large State, and not because there was any
special demand ori the part of any county or district in Missouri
for this country. In fact, it is very doubtful if the memorialists
realized either the vast extent or the richness of the soil of this
northern country. The Legislature may also have been im
pelled to sanction this northern boundary in order thereby to
have a State that was equally divided by the Missouri River.
At least it is quite probable that the representatives from
Howard and St. Charles county, as well as the inhabitants
of the potential counties of Pike, Montgomery, and Lincoln
which were erected into counties in December 1818, would
favor this.
The request for the country on the west, especially that
part along the Missouri, Kansas, and Little Platte rivers, was

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 45
not such a haphazard demand, but rested on a sincere wish for,
and a knowledge of, the section desired. It was undoubtedly
well known that this land was very fertile and would soon be
settled by the pioneers who were ever pushing westward. The
Indians then occupied it; and what more propitious time than
this for expelling them could have been found? The demand
for this country must have come largely from the Boone's Lick
country, which had already been formed into one county and
was soon tJ be broken up into many. The great movement of
immigration was along the Missouri River, and those who settled
there saw clearly that population would continue to advance
on and up that highway and its tributaries. In 1819 this demand
of central Missouri, which will be considered below, is openly
set forth in the Missouri Intelligencer. We can assign no reason
for the Legislature's placing the western boundary so far west
between the Kansas River and thirty-six degrees and thirty
minutes north latitude, unless it was a desire for a straight line
or a larger state; perhaps the members of that body reasoned
that by making the line continuous they would obviate making
so many explanations to Congress. The Legislature also
probably foresaw that Missouri's Delegate in Congress would
have to employ all his ability to gain the proposed boundary on
the south, and did not wish to further embarrass him.i
The boundary on the south, as set forth in the legislative
petition of 1818, began in the middle of the Mississippi River
at the thirty-sixth degree of north latitude, thence in a straight
southwestward line to the mouth of the Big Black River, then
followed the White River to where the parallel of thirty-six
degrees and thirty minutes north latitude crossed it, and then
continued along that latitude to the west until intersected by
the western boundary. No reason was stated in the memorial
for requesting this irregular southern boundary, and today it
still remains a more or less unsolved problem. The question
is in itself an interesting one and of much historical value apart
from the fact that it was partly due to this demand of the
Legislature and the influence of certain individuals that the
lower part of New Madrid, most of Dunklin, and all of Pemiscot
counties, are today within the limits of Missouri. For a com-

46 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
prehension of this subject it is essential that a general survey
of the boundaries and population of the southern counties of
Missouri Territory be made.
When Governor Howard, on October 1, 1812, issued his
proclamation calling for an election of territorial representatives,
he also, in pursuance of the Act of Congress of June 4, 1812,
divided and set the boundaries of the former five districts,
which he designated "counties." The county of New Madrid
was composed of the country south of Cape Girardeau county,
and extended to the very limits of the State of Louisiana.^"
On December 31, 1813, the Missouri Territorial Legislature
created Arkansas county out of New Madrid. The line of
division between the two began in the Mississippi River at
island number nineteen, which is located nearly on the thirty-
sixth degree of north latitude; thence it ran straight to the
mouth of "Red River" (Little Red, which empties into the
White River some miles below the mouth of Black River),
and then up that stream to the Osage boundary line or an ex
tension thereof.^! On January 15, 1819, New Madrid county
was further diminished in size by the erection of Lawrence
county, which embraced practically that part of the former
county which lay west of the St. Francois River .^^ As indic
ative of the increase in population, it might be noted that the
southwestern part of Arkansas county was divided in December
15, 1818, into three counties,^' and that the United States
census for Arkansas Territory in 1820 gives seven counties
with a total population of 14,273 .2*
'• Scharf, op. cit., I. 557, M. 1.
It might be noticed that prior to 1806, New Madrid district included the
whole Arkansas country. On June 27, 1806, the territorial legislature of (upper)
Louisiana cut ofl the southwestern part of the New Madrid district of Arkansas
for judicial purposes. Cf. Mo. Ter. Laws, I. 68f. This act was, however, re
pealed on July 7, 1807, and the Arkansas country feU back under the jurisdiction
of the New Madrid district. Cf. Ibid., pp. 178fl.
" Ibid., pp. 293fl. Arkansas county embraced all the country in Missouri
Territory south of that line.
" Ibid., pp. 354fl. Lawrence county was also given an extension to the
Arkansas river cut ofl from Arkansas county.
" Ibid., pp. 589ff.
" U. S. Census, 1900. Pop., I. pp. lOf. In 1810 the population of Arkansas
was 1,062; in 1820, 14,273, distributed as foUows among seven counties: Ar
kansas (along the Mississippi Eiver), 1260; Clark (central), 1,040; Hempstead
(southwest), 2,248; Lawrence (north), 5,602; Miller (extreme southwest), 999;
Phillips (east, along Mississippi river), 1,201; and Pulaski (central), 1,923.

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 47
There are several facts worth noting in this connection:
1st, New Madrid county, after the erection of Arkansas county
in 1813, contained from 1813 to 1815 practically all of Lawrence
county; 2d, Lawrence county was probably a fairly populous
county in 1818, and in 1820 contained over one-third of the total
population of the Territory of Arkansas ;25 3d, Arkansas county
must have had a large population in 1818 or three new counties
would not have been formed from it in that year, and two more
between 1818 and 1820. With this summary of the historical
and statistical data relating to the districts interested in the
proposed southern boundary of Missouri as set forth in the
1818 memorial, the reason for the Territorial Legislature re
questing such a boundary will now be taken up.
It has been maintained by some writers on Missouri history
that those members of the Missouri Territorial Legislature of
1818 who represented the counties of New Madrid, Lawrence,
and Arkansas, were the leaders in advocating this proposed
southern boundary.^* We do not believe this position is well
taken in regard to the two last named counties, and we are
even more convinced that the constituents of the representatives
from Lawrence and Arkansas counties did not favor inclusion
in the proposed State of Missouri. Some evidence, however,
supports the former position; some opposes it.
The foregoing historical sketch of New Madrid, Arkansas,
and Lawrence counties shows the political relation between
these districts, and hence between the Arkansas country and
the Missouri country. There was also present to a certain
extent the relationship of blood and of business interest; it
should also be remembered that both New Madrid and Law
rence counties extended on both sides of parallel thirty-six
degrees and thirty minutes. It is important to note that one
of the trade outlets of the upper part of Lawrence county to
the north and east was through Cape Girardeau and New
Madrid counties. Furthermore, it would not seem strange

" The territorial census of Missouri Territory taken in 1817 gave the foUowing
white male population to these counties: New Madrid, 669; Lawrence, 1,529;
aud Arkansas, 827. (BiUon, op. cit., 1804-21, p. 51.
"• Cf. Houck, op. cit., I. pp. 4f.

48 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
that at least some of the inhabitants of New Madrid and Law
rence counties should oppose having their counties divided and
placed under two territorial or state governments. The most
plausible evidence yet produced that the New Madrid county
inhabitants and those of the northeastern part of Lawrence
desired to be included in the new state, is the fact that during
the summer of 1819 these counties, together with Ste. Genevieve,
Madison, Washington, Jefferson, Cape Girardeau, and Wayne
(the last named, a part of Lawrence and Cape Girardeau prior
to December, 1818) petitioned Congress for their incorporation
within the proposed State of Missouri and for the Missouri
River as the northern boundary of that State,^' even though
the national legislature had already passed an act, which went
into force July 4, 1819, erecting the Territory of Arkansas and
setting forth its boundaries. The northern boundary of Ar
kansas Territory, as set forth in that act, excluded that part of
New Madrid county north of the thirty -sixth parallel, and in
cluded that part of Lawrence county south of thirty-six degrees
and thirty minutes. This petition or petitions of 1819 should
not be taken as proof conclusive of the sentiment of the people
in these counties, as it is known that such eminent men as John
Scott, David Barton, Ch. S. Hempstead, and John D. Cook
declared that the people of Ste. Genevieve and Jefferson counties
opposed it; John Rice Jones of Washington county said his
people did not favor it; and a counter-petition to Congress of
the inhabitants of Cape Girardeau county actually appeared.^*
These arguments have in them something plausible; but a
close examination shows them unsound. In the first place,
political relationship between counties or between territories

"Jackson (Missouri) Herald, Sept. 11, 1819.
" Ibid., Aug. 23 to Sept. 18, 1819.
It should be noticed that the northern boundary of Arkansas Territory, as
set forth in the act of 1819, is practicaUy the same as the present boundary, and
included but a very little part ol New Madrid county. The smaU part of New
Madrid county that was included in Arkansas Territory by this act was a small
triangular tract whose sides were: the St. Francois Elver on the west, the thirty-
sixth parallel on the north, and on the south to the intersection on the St. Fran
cois Eiver of a line drawn from a point in the Mississippi Elver, at about thirty-
six degrees to the mouth of the Little Bed Eiver where it empties into the White
Eiver. This small tract could not have had a large population at that time, as
all the rest of New Madrid county north of thirty-six degrees was still left in
Missouri Territory.

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 49
is no proof of their desire for union. For example, there had
been a close political bond between Indiana Territory and the
Illinois country. Still, when population had increased the latter
district wanted a separate territorial government of its own and
pledged its delegates to this end, and this in the face of a strong
opposition throughout the eastern Indiana country. In the
second place, the ties of blood and interest which connected
Lawrence and Arkansas counties with New Madrid and Cape
Girardeau counties were no stronger than those uniting Lawrence
county with Arkansas county, and it has never been maintained
that the last named county desired incorporation in the proposed
State of Missouri. In fact, the natural trade outlets for nearly
all of Lawrence county lay to the south. The main highways of
commerce were then the rivers, and especially was this true
where the direction of the bulky trade was down-stream. New
Orleans was the port of export for the surplus products both
agricultural and mineral of the Mississippi Valley. The surplus
products of Lawrence county could reach that city entirely by
water, and be propelled by current the entire distance. The
St. Francois, the Big Black, the White, the Little Red, the
Arkansas, and the Mississippi rivers together with their branches
made a network of water channels in this district. Their
superiority over the land routes, which then passed through
swamps and forests and over hills, is obvious. In 1818 Lawrence
county faced south and it remained so till the arrival of the rail
roads. In the third place, while New Madrid and Lawrence
counties extended on both sides of the thirty-six-thirty line
and perhaps did not desire to be cut into two parts, this is not
sufficient reason to justify our stating that each county there
fore had the same predilection as to its incorporation in either
Missouri or Arkansas. We are quite convinced that the exact
opposite of this is true. We believe that New Madrid county
desired inclusion in Missouri; that Lawrence county desired
inclusion in Arkansas. To us the most plausible proof, that has
yet been brought to light, showing the desire of Lawrence
county and, therefore, of her representatives for incorporation
in the proposed State of Missouri, is the abortive Missouri-
river-boundary petitions of 1819. These petitions will be taken
M S— 4

50 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
up again when we consider the memorials of that year, and we
hope that the importance of the subject will plead our pardon
for any repetitions that are made.
Fortunately, not only do we know the general provisions
of these Missouri-river-boundary petitions and the exact bound
aries set forth in them, but, what is still more important, we
also have the most irrefutable evidence relating to their value
and their influence both at home and abroad. These petitions,
purporting to represent the wishes of the people of seven southern
Missouri counties and of the county of Lawrence in Arkansas
Territory, requested Congress to give the proposed State of
Missouri the following boundaries: on the north, the Missouri
River from its mouth to the mouth of the Kansas River and
thence in a straight line west to the border of the United States ;
on the west, that part of the western boundary of the United
States lying between the point of intersection on it of the pro
posed northern boundary of Missouri and the thirty-sixth
parallel; on the south, east along the thirty-sixth parallel to its
intersection with White River, thence down that river to the
mouth of Big Black River, then east to the Mississippi River;
and on the east, thence up the Mississippi River to the mouth
of the Missouri River. The plan proposed was chimerical. It
obtained the sanction of few if any leading politicians even in
southern Missouri. It received the support of no Missouri
newspaper and its provisions were preserved for posterity by
its opponents. It was the most selfish, unpatriotic, and ill-
timed movement in the early history of this State, and was
then so regarded by Missourians. No class supported it except
perhaps a few small politicians, who wanted an issue to embarrass
their opponents and to advantage themselves by arousing sec
tional rivalry, and some large landowners, who through mis
directed patriotism and hope of gain were willing to sacrifice
the northern Missouri settlements and thwart the wishes of
the northern Arkansas people. As annalists, we regret the
obscurity surrounding the promoters of this plan ; as Missourians,
we find consolation in this fact. Of the thousands of white
male inhabitants in the counties from which these petitions
issued, only five or six hundred signed them. It was this small

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 51
number of signatures attached, so said Scott — Missouri's dele
gate to Congress — that prevented the proposition from causing
great difficulty in Washington.^" In short, the leaders of the
entire movement kept themselves well hidden. It was un
popular from its inception, and even Cape Girardeau county,
which would seem to have benefited most by such a plan,
strenuously opposed it. There existed at this time a considerable
amount of jealousy between the north Missouri country and the
southeastern counties of this territory. This was, we believe,
one of the mainsprings behind these petitions of 1819. It is
to the enduring credit of the southeastern Missouri counties
that their people and their leaders refused to be inveigled in
such a scheme. The plan itself was absurd, considering it
wholly from the southern boundary proposed. The establish
ment of Arkansas Territory several months prior to the appear
ance of these petitions, had settled the boundary line between
that territory and Missouri. Practically all New Madrid
county had been left in Missouri Territory; what little re
mained in Arkansas is not worth considering here. Lawrence
county had, it is true, been bisected by parallel thirty-six de
grees and thirty minutes, but this was a half degree farther
south than the Arkansas petition of 1818 had requested as the
northern boundary of Arkansas Territory. We are even forced
to conclude that these petitions of 1819 were as absurd as they
were ill-timed, as selfish as they were abortive, and as unpopular
as they were unpatriotic.
On the other hand, there is conclusive evidence that Ar
kansas county did not favor such a dividing line as was proposed
in the Legislature's memorial of 1818. Lying so far south that
county certainly did not expect to be a part of Missouri. Be
sides, in the fall and winter of 1818-1819, there were in circula
tion several Arkansas petitions praying for a separate territorial
government. One of these petitions, dated December (?) 1818,
"by sundry inhabitants of Southern Missouri praying for a
separate government as the Territory of Arkansas" is still in

"Sl. Louis Enquirer, Aug. 2, 1820; Mo. Intelligencer, Aug. 12, 1820.

52 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
existence.'" The boundary requested in it on the north is as
follows: "a line to be run due West from the Missippi [sic]
river in the thirty-sixth parallel of north lat. to the river St.
Francis — thence up the middle of the main channel of the said
river St. Francis to the thirty-seventh parallel of north Lat.
and thence due West to the Western boundary of United States
Territory West of the Mississippi."'! Why, then, should the
Arkansas county and the Lawrence county members of the
Missouri Territorial Legislature of 1818 favor an extended
southern boundary for Missouri, thereby cutting down the area,
and, what is still more important, reducing the population of
Arkansas territory? And, furthermore, why would they desire
to thwart the wishes of their constituents and vote contrary to
the popular petitions of the Arkansas people in this respect?
For purposes of territorial government, the population of the
Arkansas country was at its greatest extent none too large, and
the two counties of Lawrence and Arkansas contained what
little population there was. It is hardly reasonable to think
that the inhabitants of this district - should desire the inclusion
in Missouri of so many of their people, and still petition Con
gress for territorial government under which at no distant date,
they would wield far greater influence in proportion to their
numbers than under the towering State of Missouri. Instead
of the delegates from Lawrence and Arkansas counties having
favored this, it is almost certain that they opposed giving Mis
souri any of the Arkansas country south of thirty-six degrees
and thirty minutes, and perhaps even south of thirty-seven
degrees, except the narrow strip between the Mississippi and
St. Francois rivers to parallel thirty-six degrees. An article
in the Missouri Intelligencer, dated December 31, 1819, serves

" Found in House Files. Eeferred Jan. 21, 1819. Listed in Parker, op.
cit.. No. 272. The northern boundary clause was copied for us by Dr. N. D.
Mereniss. >' At the same time another petition relating to the seat of government of
the proposed Territory of Arkansas was presented to Congress by the inhabitants
of Arkansas county. Ibid., No. 271. Copy in The State Hist. Soc. of Mo.

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress, 53
to clear up much of this mistaken conception.'^ The following
is taken from the article and explains itself:
"It is a well known fact that if Arkansas coiUd have had. at the last session,
the number of representatives her population entitled her to have, that Congress
would have been petitioned to divide the two territories by a Une running west
from the mouth of the Ohio. A large minority of the House of Eepresentatives
were in favor of such a division, and hoped that some member of Congress would
at least enquire why the southern Umit should be so crooked. The pretended
reason given for it at St. Louis was so frivolous that it would have influenced
nobody in Congress." A part of the county of New Madrid, about flfteen miles
from east to west, and about thirty miles from north to south, lying between
the river St. Francois and the Mississippi was cut ofl from the center of the county,
now territory of Arkansas by an impassable marsh, over which, by the way many
traveUers have passed, and therefore the line must begin at thirty-six degree
of latitute on the Mississippi, and run west to the St. Francois, thence up the
St. Francois to 36 30 N. latitude."
It is certain that the Arkansas country, including the
entire counties of Lawrence and Arkansas but excluding New
Madrid county, had far fewer representatives in the lower house
of the territorial legislature than her population entitled her to
have.'* That the omission of the population of Arkansas county

" The article is on "Missouri State Limits" and is found in the editorial
column thus showing its importance. It is an ably written piece, and is signed
by "A Citizen." As the date indicates, this was written while the Missouri
Question still hung in the balance, but after Arkansas had become a territory
of the lowest grade by act of Congress of March 2, 1819, which went into effect
July 4, 1819. (Stat, at Large, III. 493). The northern boundary of Arkansas
as set forth in that act was as follows: Starting on the Mississippi Elver on the
thirty-sixth paraUel, thence along this parallel to the St. Francois Eiver, up that
River to thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, and thence west along that par
allel, i. e., the same as the present southern boundary of Missouri.
" The following is the reason given at St. Louis.
•< The total population of Arkansas Territory in 1820 was 14,273 and that
of Wayne county, Missouri, part of which had been taken from Lawrence county — ,
1,443. Of the former 7,290 were free white males; of the latter 779 were free
white males. The white male population of Arkansas and Lawrence counties in
1817, on which was based the apportionment of representatives to the terri
torial legislature of 1818, was 2,356 — giving these two counties oiUy four repre
sentatives. (BiUon, op. cit., 1804-1820, p. 51). It also seems very strange that
in the copy of the census of Missouri Territory taken in 1817, which was trans
mitted to Congress by Missouri's Delegate, John Scott, there is given no census
for Arkansas county and is marked simply "no return" and "1" representative.
One is forced to the conclusion that the territorial census of 1817. as given in the
documents accompanying the Missouri Legislature's memorial of 1818, was too
low for Lawrence county and was deliberately omitted as regards Arkansas
county, hence the small representation of those counties in the territorial legis
lature of 1818. These two counties should have had at least seven or eight
representatives in the Missouri Territorial Legislature of 1818, and it is quite
probable that their white male population warranted their having nine or ten
representatives. (U. S. Census 1830, Schedule 1790-1820, pp. 23, 25; Cf. also
supra m. 30.)

54 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
from the state census of 1817 was deliberate; and, that the
census of the population of Lawrence county was too low, also
appears from the number of petitions from the Arkansas country
that were presented to Congress in 1818-19.'* We shall now
conclude this somewhat extended discussion by stating our
conclusions. We believe that the inhabitants and representa
tives of that part of Lawrence county lying south of thirty-six
degrees and thirty minutes, perhaps south of even parallel

" On December 16, 1818, Mr. Eobertson of Kentucky offered for considera
tion the following resolution: Eesolved, That a committee be appointed to in
quire into the expediency of establishing a separate territorial government in
that part of the new Territory of Missouri, lying south of thirty-six degrees and
thirty minutes north latitude, which is caUed the Arkansas country, and which
is not included in the proposed boundaries of the projected State of Missouri,
by the bill now before the house, for the purpose of establishing a State govern
ment in part of the Territory of Missouri, and that the said committee have
leave to report by bill or otherwise." This resolution was adopted. Mr. Eobert
son, in support of the resolution, said that the Arkansas country was a large terri
tory and should have a separate territorial government even if Missouri was not
admitted then.
Mr. Scott of Missouri supported the resolution, but rather hedged in his
speech. He said he was waiting a memorial for statehood from the Missouri
Territorial Legislature and a copy of the census, etc. He also remarked that
he had intended introducing a similar resolution as soon as the Legislature's
memorial had arrived. He explained that he had not done this beforehand be
cause he did not have full data, etc. However, he thought the population justi-
fled a separate territorial government. (Abridg. Debates of Congress, VI. 222.
Annals of Congress, I. 413f.)
It seems rather strange that the Arkansas question was first brought forward
in Congress by a representative from Kentucky, and not by Missouri's Territorial
Delegate. There was perhaps a lack of confidence in Scott on the part of the
Arkansas people, and they probably doubted if he would urge thirty-six degrees
and thirty minutes as the dividing line, knowing already that the Missouri Ter
ritorial Legislature was asking or had asked for, territory below that parallel
for the future State of Missouri.
On December 21, 1818, House BiU No. 238 was reported "establishing a
separate territorial government in the southern part of Missouri." This passed
the House February 20, 1819 and was read in the Senate February 22, 1819.
(Parker, op. cit., p. 27. Found in House Library and House Files, Fifteenth
Congress.) This bill finally passed and became a law March 2, 1819, going into
effect July 4, 1819. It set the northern boundary of Arkansas Territory the same
as it is today, i. e., it excluded the New Madrid strip and followed parallel thirty-
six degrees and thirty minutes. If there had been a very pressing demand on the
part of the inhabitants of Lawrence county along the Black Eiver and the left
bank of the White Eiver for inclusion in Missouri State, it is hard to see why
these people together with Scott could not have obtained it as easily as the New
Madrid people did. (Annals of Congress, III. 252f., 272fl; IV. 1222-1235, 1273f.,
1283.) On January 30, 1819, Scott presented a petition of sundry inhabitants of the
Arkansas country, praying that a separate territorial government be established
for them. This is the last petition of its kind of which there is any record and the
only one presented by Scott. (Ibid., I. 911.)

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 55
thirty-seven, and that the people and representatives of Ar
kansas county, did not favor inclusion in the new State of Mis
souri. It seems certain, on the other hand, that the people of
the New Madrid strip south of thirty-six degrees and thirty
minutes did have a sincere desire to be attached to this State. '^
The inclusion in the legislature's petition of 1818 of that part
of Lawrence county that lay south of parallel thirty-six degrees
and thirty minutes was, we believe, the work of several in
fluential landowners and politicians of southeastern Missouri,
aided, perhaps, by a few similarly interested men in Lawrence
county." This concludes our discussion of the legislature's
memorial of 1818.
On December 18, 1818, the Speaker of the House of Repre
sentatives of the United States presented to that body the
Missouri legislative memorial.'^ On February 13, 1819, the
Missouri bill was taken up in the Committee of the Whole and
was discussed. It was on this day that Talmadge proposed
an amendment, limiting slavery in Missouri State by declaring
free all negroes born in that territory after its admission, and
by providing for the gradual emancipation of those who were
then slaves. The Annals correctly state that: "This motion
gave rise to an interesting and pretty wide debate." " Two
days later, Talmadge proposed his famous amendment to the
Missouri bill by prohibiting the further introduction of slavery

" Houck, op. cit., I. 6f., says that "to J. Hardeman Walker," a large land
owner near the old village of Little Prairie (close to the present town of Caruthers-
ville), "we owe it that the additional territory now embraced in the limits of
Pemiscot county, and most of that within the counties of DuukUn and New
Madrid, was added to the new State." Walker was an "energetic, pubUc spirited"
citizen of Missouri in 1818; his plantation lay south of thirty-six degrees and thirty
minutes. He made a vigorous effort both at home and perhaps outside the State
to have the New Madrid strip included in the State. It is very probable that
Scott and the poUticians at Jackson, Missouri, such as Alexander Buckner, Gen
eral James Evans, Judge Eichard S. Thomas and others there were also quite
Infiuential. Jackson, Missouri, was then "the great business and poUtical center
of the territory south of St. Louis," and would naturally lend its greatest support
to this plan.
" Mr. Houck. in a letter to the author, dated January 29, 1914, states that
the inhabitants of that part of Lawrence county south of parallel thirty-six de
grees and thirty minutes to the mouth of the Black river, and east of the White
river, probably lacked a leader in pushing forward their desire for inclusion in
Missouri, and hence were unsuccessful.
" Annals of Congress, III. 408.
"Ibid., p. 1166.

56 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
in Missouri and by providing that all children born in Missouri
after her admission were to be free at the age of twenty-five
years. A long debate followed which covers twenty-three
pages of the Proceedings. The amendment passed in the
Committee of the Whole by a vote of seventy-nine to sixty-
seven.*" On the 17th of February the House passed the Mis
souri bill with the Talmadge amendment,*! and the Senate was
informed to that effect. The House bill was immediately
considered by the latter body, and after a second reading was
referred to the committee in charge of the memorial of the
territorial legislature of Alabama.*^ This committee, on the
twenty-second, reported the Missouri bill with an amendment.
The amendment recommended was to strike out the Talmadge
amendment of the House.*' On the twenty-seventh, after a
long and animated debate, the Senate by a strong majority
followed the recommendation of its committee in this respect,**
and on March 2d, the Missouri bill, with the Senate amendment.

" Ibid., pp. 1170-1193. Prof. Woodburn, in his article on The Historical
Significance of the Missouri Compromise" (Annual Report of the American His
torical Association, 1893, pp. 253fl.), says that neither of these propositions of
the Talmadge Amendment "proposed to interfere with the rights of property
in the Territory," but that these restrictions of slavery appeared to the inhab
itants of Missouri and Arkansas not as restrictions but as aboUtion, in view of
the third article of the treaty of cession. If Professor Woodburn had lived in
Missouri at that time, and had been an owner of slaves, he would very probably
have appreciated and accepted the Missouri interpretation of this amendment.
Whether the Talmadge amendment proposed the aboUtion or the restriction of
slavery is of Uttle consequence, but it is Important to know that its application
and enforcement in Missouri would have meant the death of that institution in
the proposed state. It may be of interest to note that the Annals speak of the
Talmadge amendment as prohibiting slavery in the new State. Cf. Annals of
Congress, III. 251.
•¦ Ibid., pp. 1194-1216. On the sixteenth the House took up the consideration
of the Missouri question and the Talmadge amendment, and a debate followed
which covers twenty pages of the Annals. The first part of the amendment
prohibiting the further introduction of slavery in Missouri was passed by a vote
of eighty-seven to seventy-six. The slave children part of the amendment passed
by the narrow vote of eighty-two to seventy-eight. The vote for ordering the
amended bill engrossed for a third reading was ninety-seven to fifty-six.
For passage of the biU see Ibid., IV. 1218.
"IMd., III. 238.
" Ibid., p. 251.
" Ibid., pp. 272f. A motion was made to postpone the consideration of the
bill to a day beyond the session. This was negatived by a vote of fourteen to
twenty-three. That part of the slavery restriction regarding negro chUdreu was
stricken out by a vote of thirty-one to seven, and the other part by a vote of
twenty-two to sixteen.

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 57
was passed by the upper body.*^ The House, by a narrow vote,
refused to concur with the Senate in its amendment,*' and the
Senate adhering to its position to strike out the slavery restric
tion clause,*' the House agreed to adhere to its position,** and
the Missouri bill was lost for that Congress. One thing regard
ing Missouri had been settled, and that was her southern bound
ary, as the act of Congress providing for a territorial govern
ment in Arkansas had set the northern boundary of that dis
trict. The boundary of the proposed new State of Missouri
on the north and west was still left to absorb the attention of
the inhabitants of Missouri Territory, and curiously enough, in
spite of the Arkansas act, they also brought forward the ques
tion of the southern boundary.
It was during the summer and fall of 1819 that petitions
and resolutions relating solely to this boundary question first
made their appearance in Missouri. It was a matter of the
greatest importance at that time, and the newspapers both
north and south of the Missouri river show clearly the concern
of all over it. On Monday, July 5, 1819, at a large gathering of
citizens at Franklin, Howard county, Missouri, a resolution was
adopted "That, in the opinion of this meeting, the Missouri
river ought to divide equally the State of Missouri; and that
the western boundary ought to extend at least fifty miles beyond
the mouth of the Kansas river, without prejudice from the
remote angular point made by New Madrid County."*' This
resolution was only another way of expressing the wishes of the
inhabitants of at least the western part of Missouri Territory
for the land along the Missouri, the Kansas, and the Little
Platte rivers. The first expression of this wish is found in the
Legislature's memorial of 1818, and in all probability its strongest
advocates were the representatives from the Boone's Lick
country, although it must also have had the support of a majority
of the Missouri people. The Missouri Intelligencer of 1819-

"Ibid., pp. 275, 279.
"Ibid., IV. 1433fl.
" Ibid., III. 282.
'• Ibid., IV. pp. 1436fl.
"Missouri Intelligencer, July 9, 1819; this resolution was also noticed in the
Jackson (Missouri) Herald of September 4, 1819.

58 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
1820 had several valuable articles on this subject. One of
special worth appeared on December 31, 1819. In it a request
was made that Congress allow the western boundary to take
in the "headwaters of the Little Platte" "to the mouth of
Wolfe river." A remarkable prophecy was made by the writer
when he said: "It is impossible for our government to keep
our frontier settlers from crossing the western Indian line to
the fertile lands of the Little Platte. These lands must be
purchased in a short time, and if annexed to our State would
save Congress the expense of a territorial government for a
long time — perhaps for one hundred years." This was what
actually took place, and in 1836 the Platte Purchase gave to
Missouri what her inhabitants in 1819 saw so clearly must
finally be either a part of this state or a territory.'" Similar
articles appear during January, 1820, on this point. In Feb
ruary, 1820, when the first draft of the Missouri Bill was printed
in the Missouri Intelligencer, the boundaries were the same as
were set forth in the Enabling Act. However, it was reported
that: "It is the intention of Mr. Scott to introduce several
amendments, so as to make it correspond with the Legislative
memorial as far as possible." '! Missouri failed to obtain the
Little Platte country at this time, but her inhabitants won it
for her during the next sixteen years, and legal title was vested
by Act of Congress in 1836.
During this summer, probably in July or August, 1819, the
first and only Missouri-river-boundary petitions appeared.
They had their origin in southern Missouri and in northeastern
Arkansas and purported to be petitions of the inhabitants of
the counties of Ste. Genevieve, Madison, Washington, Jefferson,
Wayne, Cape Girardeau, Lawrence, and New Madrid. How
ever, prominent men of Ste. Genevieve, Jefferson, Washington
and Cape Girardeau counties protested in letters to the Jackson
(Missouri) Herald that the inhabitants of these four counties

"Ibid., Dec. 31, 1819. The article is signed, "Citizen." The writer did
not think that the wishes of Howard and Cooper counties in this respect would
be well attended to by Scott. See also, Missouri Intelligencer, Jan. 7, 1820, an
article by "Cato;" Jan. 28. 1820, an editorial against a Missouri-river-boundary
line. " Ibid., Feb. 4, 1820.

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 59
did not favor these petitions; and a counter-petition to Con
gress actually appeared in Cape Girardeau county opposing
the division of the Territory of Missouri.'^
It has been quite plausibly maintained by some, that these
Missouri-River-boundary petitions made their appearance in
1818; that they originated in the dissatisfaction of many resi
dents who did not favor the boundaries set forth in the popular
petitions of 1817; and that they serve to explain the ragged
southern boundary clause requested for Missouri in the memorial
of the Missouri Territorial Legislature of 1818.^' We cannot
understand how such propositions could have obtained credence.
It is obvious that the primary subject of consideration here is
the question of dates. If the formerly accepted chronology is
wrong, the whole argument is of no value. If the Missouri-
River-boundary petitions did not appear until 1819, they could
not have exercised an influence on the 1818 petition. We take
pleasure in handling this matter; in correcting so important an
error. The fact is, as far as we can gather from the records
preserved of that day, no Missouri-River-boundary petition
appeared until July or August of 1819.'* No newspaper in
Missouri Territory mentions such a petition until 1819; nor is
there any item on this subject in Niles' Register prior to 1819.
We regard this silence of these publications in 1818 as con
clusive evidence that no Missouri-River-boundary petition
appeared in that year. It is certain that such a boundary line
would have attracted attention in 1818, as is evidenced in the

" Annals of Congress, Sixteenth Congress, first session, I. 800. For these
Missouri-river-boundary petitions, the counter-petition, letters of John Scott,
John D. Cook, John Eice Jones, D. Barton and Ch. S. Hempstead, see Jackson
(Missouri) Herald, Aug. — Sept., 1819.
" Cf., e. g., Houck, op. cit., I. 3f.
" The statements in Houck, op. cit., I. 3f., regarding these petitions are in
accurate. This is due to a confusion of dates. Por example, in giving authority
for the statement that these Missouri-Eiver-boundary petitions appeared in the
early part of 1818 or at the close of 1817, reference is made to Niles' Eegister
[Sic, 17 Niles' Register, p. 175]. When we consulted this reference it was found
under date of November 13, 1819. Again, it is stated in the work under dis
cussion, that the St. Louis Enquirer objected to the Missouri-Eiver-boundary
petition of 1818. On investigating we found that this objection did not appear in
that paper untU December 1, 1819, and that it was then directed against the 1819
petitions. Cf. BiUon, op. cit., 1804-1821, p. 105; Scharf, op. cit., I. 905; and also
Houck, op. cit.. III. 65f.

60 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Washington, D. C, the Jackson, the St Louis, and the Franklin,
Missouri, newspapers of 1819, when such a proposal was actually
made in the petitions of that year.** Furthermore, the Annals
of Congress made no mention of such a petition being presented
to Congress during 1818; while they did record the petitions of
1819.*' The Missouri-River-boundary petitions stated that the
Missouri River should form the boundary between two states
and not be the dividing line of a state. The boundaries asked
for Missouri were: The Missouri river from its mouth to the
mouth of the Kansas river, thence west to the western boundary
of the country, thence south along the far western boundary to
the thirty-sixth parallel, thence east to the White River, and
down that river to the mouth of the "Big Black river," thence
east to the Mississippi River, thence up the latter river to the
mouth of the Missouri River. There were several of these
petitions in circulation, as the Annals state that on December
18, 1819, the Speaker of the House presented "petitions," which,
judging from the order of arrangement of the names of the
counties from which they came,*' were undoubtedly the same
as the above.
The question naturally arises whether these petitions re
ceived any considerable support in either Missouri or Arkansas
Territory. As this has already been discussed we will make
only a few additional remarks. These petitions did not have
the support of many followers either in Arkansas Territory or
in Missouri. If prominent and influential men in the last
Territorial Legislature did in 1818 favor the inclusion of north
eastern Arkansas, they probably saw in 1819 that further effort
in this line was futile. Missouri had been given her southern
boundary when Arkansas Territory was organized July 4, 1819.

" Cf. Niles' Begister, XVII. 175 (Nov. 13, 1819); St. Louis Enquirer, Dec. 1,
1819; Missouri Intelligencer, Dec. 17, 1819; Jackson (Missouri) Herald, Aug. —
Sept., 1819.
" I. 800, (Dec. 28, 1819.) The petitions presented to Congress on March
16, 1818, cannot by the widest interpretation be construed to have been Missouri-
Eiver-boundary petitions. (Cf. Annals of Congress, II. 1391f.) Most of them
were probably the popular petitions of 1817, and some were probably petitions
from the Arkansas country praying for a separate territorial government.
"IMd., I. 800.

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 61
The New Madrid strip had been left to Missouri; Arkansas
had been given no more than justly belonged to her. The
boundaries proposed in the petitions were too fanciful ever to
have succeeded even under more favorable surroundings. From
all that we can learn, the plan was put on foot and carried out
with the greatest secrecy. The opposition to it in the only
newspaper published in south Missouri was bitter and un
reserved. It was probably as decisively opposed in Arkansas
Territory. At all events it did not obtain a hearty welcome
anywhere and instead of being endorsed by a thousand males
in Lawrence county alone, it received a total of but five or six
hundred signatures in the eight counties of Ste. Genevieve,
Madison, Washington, Jefferson, Wayne, Cape Girardeau,
Lawrence, and New Madrid.
Scott, in a letter dated August, 1820, to the people of Mis
souri announcing his candidacy for representative to Congress,
states that these Missouri-River-boundary petitions caused
him trouble in Congress but that they were put aside owing
to "The comparatively small number of the whole mass of the
people who signed those petitions, being only between five and
six hundred signers, the obvious bad policy of the measure, and
the dangers of delay, which our friends evidently saw must
result from such a division" etc., etc.*' The articles and edi
torials in the Missouri newspapers of that day sustain Scott in
this respect. None of these publications favored these petitions,
and all were quite pronounced in their opposition to them. The
St. Louis Enquirer of December 1, 1819, was outspoken against
the petitions; and said that, after a few miles of woodland ori
the principal rivers, there appear the "naked and arid plains." *'
This paper adds that: "The petition, as might be readily
supposed, meets, among the people of the territory with a very
few friends."'" The National Intelligencer of Washington, D.
C, did not think it would be successful, although it rather ap
proved the proposition of a series of long, narrow states west of

• • St. Louis Enquirer, Aug. 2. 1820; Missouri Intelligencer, Aug. 12, 1820.
'• Missouri Intelligencer, Dec. 17. 1819. An article by "An Observer."
'• Ibid., Dec. 17, 1819. Taken from the National Intelligencer.

62 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
the Mississippi River, similar to Tennessee.'! yj^g Missouri
Intelligencer vigorously opposed the petition and suggested that
the southern boundary of Missouri be a line running west from
the mouth of the Ohio river, and that the State be so enlarged
as to make the Missouri River the actual center of it.'^ The
Jackson Herald was as bitter as the Missouri Intelligencer in
its attack on these petitions. Although this subject has a
special attraction to us, it will now be necessary to consider the
fight in Congress over the Missouri question during the first
session of the sixteenth Congress, which finally resulted in the
passage of an Enabling Act.
On December 8, 1819, Scott introduced in the House the
memorial of the Territorial Legislature and those of the in
habitants of Missouri, praying for statehood, which had been
presented to the House at the last session of Congress." These
were referred to a committee of five, of which Scott was chair
man. A Missouri bill was reported from this committee the
following day, and from that time to the end of December, it
was under discussion.'* It is important to notice that on De
cember 30th, when the Maine statehood bill was taken up.
Clay, in a speech, sought to connect the Missouri proposition
with it. The Maine bill passed the House on January 3, 1820,
and was sent to the Senate.'*
The Senate had already received the Missouri Legislature's
memorial," and the Judiciary Committee to whom it had re
ferred the Maine bill reported that bill with an amendment,
which was the Missouri bill without restrictions. On January
13, 1820, the Senate took up this Maine-Missouri bill as re
ported, and an effort was made to separate the two. This at
tempt at a separation of the two bills was lost by a vote of
twenty-five to eighteen." On the seventeenth an amendment

•1 Ibid., Dec. 17, 1819. This paper, i. e., the National Intelligencer, said that
it was unfair to give three states a frontage on the Mississippi river, and all the
States west of these to have no frontage, besides being both "feeble and remote,
with a foreign nation on their confines."
" IMd., Dec. 31, 1819.
" Annals of Congress, I. 704.
"Ibid., pp. 711. 732. 734fl., SOlfl.
•' IMd., pp. 831-44, 848f.
" Ibid., pp. 42f., 73f.
" Ibid., pp. 85-99, 101-118.

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 63
was offered by Edwards to exclude slavery from the other
territory of the United States, but this amendment was with
drawn.'* On the same day Roberts offered an amendment to
the Missouri amendment to the Maine bill, excluding the
further introduction of slavery into Missouri.'^ An animated
debate took place in the Senate following this. The next day,
Thomas introduced a bill, which later became the basis of the
First Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in all
the territory of the United States north and west of the pro
posed State of Missouri; the line of demarcation on the south
being thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes.'" The entire
Missouri question was before the Senate during the re
mainder of January, and the discussion in the Senate at this
time covers two hundred pages of the Annals.''^ On February
first, a vote was taken on Roberts' amendment and it lost by
a large majority.'^ On the third, Thomas of Illinois offered an
amendment to the Missouri bill, prohibiting slavery in all the
Louisiana Purchase north of thirty-six degrees and thirty min
utes, except in the proposed State of Missouri. This was the
First Missouri Compromise as finally adopted." Thomas later
withdrew his amendment, and the debate continued beyond the
middle of the month.'* On the sixteenth, the Maine-Missouri
bill was adopted by a vote of twenty-three to twenty-one.
Thomas then proposed his thirty-six degrees and thirty minute
amendment, and several attempts at changing it were voted
down.'* On the seventeenth, the Thomas amendment passed
by a vote of thirty-four to ten, and on the eighteenth the
Maine-Missouri bill, with this amendment, passed the Senate."
In the meantime, the House had had the Missouri Question
under consideration. On December 28th, the petitions of the

•• Ibid., p. 119.
•• Ibid., pp. 119-166.
" Ibid., pp. 157f.
" Ibid., pp. 159-359.
" Ibid., p. 359.
" IMd., p. 363; Cf. also pp. 360f.
" IMd., p. 367. On February 7th, Thomas withdrew his amendment. See
also pp. 374-417.
"Ibid., pp. 418-424.
'• IMd., p. 430.

64 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
eight Missouri-Arkansas counties had been presented to that
body, and on January third, Scott presented a petition and re
monstrance of the Baptist Association of Mt. Zion, Howard
county, Missouri Territory, protesting against the interference
of Congress in the provisions of the constitution contemplated
for Missouri upon its admission into the Union, and also against
any restrictions on the rights of property." It was on January
24th that the House took up in earnest the Missouri Question;
and until February 19th, this was the single great subject under
consideration." On the latter day the Maine-Missouri bill of
the Senate was taken up, and on the twenty- third the House,
by a vote of ninety-three to seventy-two, "disagreed" to having
the Missouri bill attached to the Maine bill, and then by a large
vote further "disagreed" to all amendments of the Senate to
the Maine bill.'" The Missouri bill was taken up on the latter
day and was discussed until the twenty-eighth, when the Senate
informed the House that they insisted on their amendment to
the Maine bill. It should be noticed that on the 26th Storrs
of New York proposed an amendment to the Missouri bill which
was practically the same as Thomas's amendment in the Senate.
The House, on receipt of the Senate's message, insisted by
a vote of ninety-seven to seventy-six on "disagreeing" to the
first eight sections of the Senate's amendment (the Missouri
bill) to the Maine bill, and also by a vote of one hundred and
sixty to fourteen disagreed to the Thomas amendment.'" The
Senate then asked the House to appoint a committee to meet
with one they had appointed for a discussion in joint conference
of the differences over the Maine-Missouri bill. On the same
day the House negatived Storrs's amendment. On the day
following, the House agreed to the conference asked by the
Senate, and appointed five of its members to represent it.
After discussing the Missouri bill, the House passed a slavery
restriction amendment to it by a vote of ninety-four to eighty-six,
and the bill, by a vote of ninety-three to eighty-four, was or-

" Ibid., pp. 800, 848.
"IMd., pp. 937f., 940-947, 949-1042, 1046, 1064, 1069-1136, 1138-1170,
1172-1289, (II), 1291-1329, 1333-1403, 1405.
"Ibid., II. 1405-10, 1412-50, 1453-57.
"IMd., pp. 1552-57. See also pp. 1457-1463, 1466-89, 1491-1541, 1552-55.

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 65
dered engrossed for the third reading.'! On March first, the
Missouri bill, with its slavery restriction amendment, passed
the House by a vote of ninety-one to eighty-two, and was sent
to the Senate.'^ When the separate Missouri House bill, pro
hibiting the further introduction of slavery in Missouri, reached
the Senate on the second, that body at once proceeded to vote
out the restriction and insert the Thomas amendment, and
send it back to the House.*' On this day, Holmes, chairman
of the House committee in the Joint Conference, reported three
recommendations: 1st that the Maine-Missouri bill be sep
arated and pass as separate bills; 2d that the slavery restriction
in the Missouri bill be stricken out; and 3d that the Thomas
amendment be inserted in the Missouri bill. The House then
struck out the slavery restriction by a vote of ninety to eighty-
seven; inserted the Thomas amendment by a vote of one hun
dred thirty-four to forty-two; and passed the Missouri bill in
this form.'*
This ended the first Missouri fight in Congress, which had
continued for two sessions of that body, and had absorbed the
attention not only of the National Legislature but of the entire
Nation. Thomas Jefferson, in a private letter, dated February
7, 1820, says: "It [i. e., the Missouri Question] is the most
portentous one which ever yet threatened our Union. In the
gloomiest moment of the revolutionary war I never had any
apprehensions equal to what I feel from this source." And
again, in another letter, dated April 22, 1820, after the first
fight had ended, he gloomily and prophetically adds: "But
this momentous question, like a fire ball in the night, awakened
and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell
of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment. But this
is a reprieve only, not a single sentence."'* The struggle in
Congress revealed the desire of the House to place a restriction
on slavery in Missouri, and the determination of the Senate to

•¦ IMd., pp. 1558-1568.
"IMd., pp. 1572f.
" IMd., I. pp. 467ff.
"IMd., II. pp. 1575-88.
" Writings, X. 156. (Letter to Hugh Nelson, dated February 7, 1820.)
IMd., pp. 157f. (Letter to John Holmes, dated April 22, 1820.)
M S— 5

66 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
prevent this. The Compromise originated in the Senate and
was the product of Thomas, who introduced it as a bill, then as
an amendment; who withdrew it, and again introduced it as
an amendment, which passed the Senate and, finally, the House.
The amendment proposed by Thomas is practically the same
as that of Storrs's in the House, but the former introduced his
first. The Missouri Enabling Act was approved by President
Monroe on March 6, 1820;" its provisions will now be con
sidered in concluding this chapter.
The act of March 6, 1820, consisted of eight sections. The
first section empowered the inhabitants of Missouri Territory,
under such rules and regulations as were later set forth, to form
a constitution and state government and to assume such name
as they wished. It also declared that such state when formed
should be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the
original states in all respects. It was in pursuance of this
section and by virtue of the authority therein given to Missouri
that the inhabitants of this territory, acting in a regularly con
stituted manner, framed and adopted a state constitution;
organized and set in working a state government; and choose
a name for their state. It is regrettable that the latter part of
this section was not so readily carried out.
Section two defined the boundaries of the new state, which
were the sarae as those set forth in article I of the Missouri
Constitution of 1820. Curiously enough these boundaries were
nearly the same as those requested in the popular memorials of
1817. The northern boundary in the memorial of 1817 was the
same as that included in the Enabling Act of 1820, i. e., about
forty degrees and thirty-five minutes,*' while, as set forth in
the legislative memorial of 1818, it ran about one degree farther
north or between sixty and seventy miles. The western bound
ary requested in the memorial of 1817 was the Osage boundary
"Stat, at Large, III. 545fl; Mo. Ter. Laws, I. 628fl; Annals of Congress, Six
teenth Congress, first session, II. 2555fl.
" As we have noticed, the memorial of 1817 was confusing in its language on
the northern boundary. That memorial speaks in one place of making the north
ern boundary coincide with the fortieth parallel, and in another with the Indian
boundary line near the mouth of the Des Moines Eiver. The Indian boundary
line was later decided to be that surveyed by John C. Sullivan in 1816, and is
about forty degrees and thirty-flve minutes north latitude. Houck, op. cit.,
I. 14f. Gannett, Boundaries of United States, pp. 122f.

\
^-''^,
I
V
"*"
K^'=^
^-^{
I
7 
] 1
¦f
 r
.,  tW  r
kr
BOUNDARY OF MISSOURI AS FIRST
SUGGE,STED IN 1S17.
Ficm Houck's l/iM. of t)lti., I. .;.
BOUNDARY OF MISSOURI AS SUGGESTED BY THE
TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE IN 1S18.
From Houck's Hijt. of Mo., I. 5.
^
,J^.
\ r— -1
*=(.
x,
^~v,
-i
K
,> 1
*^-r
J,
BOUNDARY OF MISSOURI AS ADOPTED BY
CONGRESS IN 1820.
From Houck's Hist, of Mo.. I. 6.
BOUNDARY OF MISSOURI W ITH THE PLATTE
PURCHASE ADDED.
From Houck's Hist, of Mn . I. 12.
Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 67
line, or a line about twenty-four miles east of the one adopted
in the Enabling Act, which latter was a north and south line
running through the mouth of the Kansas river: the boundary
requested in the legislative memorial of 1818 was thirty miles
to the west of the one named by Congress. The southern
boundary set forth in the 1817 memorial was thirty-six degrees
and thirty minutes, which was adopted by Congress, except to
include the New Madrid strip between the Mississippi River
and the St. Francois River as far as the thirty-sixth parallel.
As has already been stated above, the legislative memorial of
1818 had asked for much more than this on the southeast. In
both memorials and in the Enabling Act, the eastern boundary
was naturally the Mississippi River. From this summary it
is seen that Congress decided in favor of the 1817 petitions on
the northern boundary; compromised between the petitions of
1817 and 1818 on the western boundary; and in general followed
the petition of 1817 on the southern boundary, making, however,
a slight concession on the extreme southeast in favor of the 1818
petition. These extensive boundaries, which made Missouri at that
time the second largest state geographically, were not obtained
without some opposition in Congress," and were probably the
result of the activity of Missouri's Delegate in Congress. Scott
said, in a letter regarding this: "I had some difficulties to en
counter in regard to the boundaries of our state, these grew princi
pally out of those petitions of a part of our citizens, that had for
their object to make the Missouri River the dividing line. The
comparatively small number of the whole mass of the people who
signed these petitions, being only between five and six hundred
signers, the obvious bad policy of the measure, and the dangers
of delay, which our friends ardently saw must result from such
a division enabled me to put the application aside, and that
boundaries adjusted which are as large as I was able to obtain.
The smaller states felt the weight of the larger states and did
not want to increase their number, and the larger states did not
want to create rivals to their preponderance." '"

•• Niles' Eegister, XVII. 440.
"St. Louis Enquirer, Aug. 2, 1820; Missouri Intelligencer, Aug. 12, 1820.

68 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Congress further stated that these were to be the boundaries
of this State: provided, that this State ratify them, "and pro
vided also" that this State have concurrent jurisdiction on the
Mississippi "and every other river bordering on the said State"
so far as they form its boundary, and that the Mississippi River
and the navigable rivers leading into it shall be "common high
ways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said
State as to other citizens of the United States, without any tax,
duty, import or toll therefor, imposed by the said State." The
, first proviso was carried out in article I of the Missouri Con
stitution of 1820, and the second in section 2 of article X.
The third section of the Enabling Act provided for the
election of representatives to a constitutional convention. The
electors included "all free white male citizens of the United
States, who shall have arrived at the age of twenty-one years,
and have resided in said territory three months previous to the
day of election, and all other persons qualified to vote for repre
sentatives to the General Assembly of the said territory."
This is one of the lowest qualifications for an elector that have
ever obtained in Missouri. It is recalled that the act of Con
gress of June 4, 1812, relating to Missouri, provided that electors
of representatives to the Territory Legislature were required to
have resided in the territory twelve months before the election,
and to have paid a territorial county tax assessment made at
least six months before the election. The qualifications of elect
ors as set forth in the Constitution of 1820 omitted the tax re
quirement, but required a residence of one year in the State
and three months in the county or district.""
The forty-one representatives or delegates to the conven
tion were apportioned among the fifteen counties of Missouri as
follows: Howard, five; Cooper, three; Montgomery, two; Pike,
one; Lincoln, one; St. Charles, three; Franklin, one; St. Louis,
eight; Jefferson, one; Washington, three; Ste. Genevieve, four;
Madison, one; Cape Girardeau, five; New Madrid, two; Wayne,
including that portion of Lawrence county in Missouri, one.
This apportionment was manifestly unjust to certain coun
ties, as is seen on consulting the United States census of Mis-
•' Missouri Constitution, 1820, III. Sec. 10.

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress,

69

souri taken in August, 1820, by the United States Marshal."!
Although there are individual exceptions, it is clear that the
counties north of the Missouri river and the county of Cooper
were the most unfairly dealt with in this apportionment. These
counties contained a population of 32,859 and were apportioned
only fifteen delegates, while the counties south of the Missouri
river, excluding Cooper, contained a population of 33,745 and

" The Missouri Intelligencer of AprU 16, 1821, gives the total population of
Missouri taken by the United States Marshal on August 1, 1820, as 66,604; the
U. S. Census of 1850, p. 665, gives the population of Missouri in 1820 as 66,557;
and the U. S. Census of 1900, Pop. I. pp. 27f., as 66,586. Following is the census
of Missouri in 1820 arranged by counties:

According to the
Missouri
IntelUgencer,
AprU 16, 1821.

According to
United States
Census, 1900.

Cape Girardeau.
Cooper 
Franklin 
Howard 
Jefferson 
Lincoln 
Madison 
Montgomery. . . .
New Madrid ....
Pike 
St. Charles 
Ste. Genevieve. .
St. Louis 
Washington 
Wayne 
Actual Total

5,9656,959
2,379
13,427 1,8351,662
2,0473,0742,2963,747
3,990 5,0489,732
3,000 1,443

5,968
6,9592,379
13,426 1,8351,662
2,047 ,074,296
,747,970,962
10,049 2,769 1,443

66,604

66 , 586

The very slight difference in the census according to the two above sources
is not sufficient to justify discussion in this work. It might be of interest to note
that the (St. Louis) Missouri Gazette of March 14, 1821, gives the enumerated
population of St. Louis by sex. color, aud age, and its total is 9,732, or the same as
the Missouri Intelligencer AprU 16, 1821. In this chapter, the figures of the
Missouri Intelligencer wiU be used unless otherwise specified. However, the gen
eral statements made and conclusions reached hold equaUy true, is based on the
1820 census as set forth in the United States Census of 1900. The St. Louis
Enquirer of March 31, 1821, gives the census the same as the Missouri Intelli
gencer, but omits Howard county. The total is given as 66,607, and the actual
sum is 53,177. The diflerence is 13,430, which is practicaUy the same as the
Intelligencer gives for Howard county. The V. S. Census of 1830 (p. 23 of Schedule
of the Census of 1790, 1800, 1810 and 1820) gives the same population of Missouri
by counties for 1820 as the U. S. Census of 1900.

70 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
were given twenty-six delegates. Howard county, the largest
and most populous county in Missouri, with a population of
13,427, was given five delegates; St. Louis county, with a popu
lation of 9,732, was given eight delegates; and Cape Girardeau
county, with a population of 5,965, was given five delegates.
Pike county, with a population of 3,747, had only one delegate;
while Washington, with a population of 3,000, had three dele
gates. Cooper county, with a population of 6,959, had three
delegates ; and Ste. Genevieve county, with a population of 5,048,
had four delegates. The counties that were apportioned one
delegate for every 1,300 of their population or less were Cape
Girardeau, Franklin, New Madrid, St. Louis, Ste. Genevieve,
and Washington. All these were south of the Missouri river,
and at that time were the homes of the leading lawyers and pol
iticians of Missouri. A delegate from Washington county
represented only 1,000 persons; from New Madrid, 1,148;
from Franklin, 1,189; from Cape Girardeau, 1,193; from St.
Louis, 1,216; from Ste. Genevieve, 1,262; and from St. Charles,
1,330: while a delegate from Pike county represented 3,747
persons; from Howard, 2, 685; from Cooper, 2,319; from Madison,
2,047; from Jefferson, 1,835; from Lincoln, 1,662; from Mont
gomery, 1,537; and from Wayne, 1,443. It is seen that, ex
cepting Franklin county, most of the counties created in 1818
were unjustly dealt with; while the counties erected prior to
that year were greatly favored, excepting Howard, which con
tained one-fifth of the population of Missouri in 1820, but was
apportioned only one-eighth of the delegates to the Convention.
When it is remembered that the three frontier counties, Howard,
Cooper, and Pike, contained a population of 24,133, and re
ceived only nine delegates, while St. Louis county, with a popu
lation of 9,732, was apportioned eight delegates, the glaring
injustice that had been done to the Boone's Lick and Salt River
districts is plainly perceived.
One might object to these statements on the grounds that
the apportionment of the delegates should be considered from
the standpoint of the free white male inhabitants, and not on
the basis of the total population, including whites and blacks.
This would be a valid objection, considering that representatives

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 71
to the lower house of the Territorial Legislature had been ap
portioned on this basis since the establishment of the body in
1812, were it not for the fact that statistics regarding the white
males of Missouri in 1820 furnish equal support to what we have
said."^ As a matter of fact, the country north of the Missouri
River and the county of Cooper had increased in population by
leaps and bounds since the census of 1817. Nor was this a
matter of mere sectional knowledge; it was observed and com
mented upon by both the writers and the newspapers of the day."'
The inhabitants of the Boone's Lick country were not only
aware of their numbers, but both Cooper and Howard counties
protested strongly against the small number of convention
delegates apportioned them by Congress. They not only
resented being so unjustly discriminated against, but they
especially feared that their section would not receive its due
consideration in the many questions certain to arise in the con
vention. One of the main issues with them, an important issue
all over the territory, was the location of the permanent seat of

" FoUowing is the number of free white male Inhabitants in the various
counties of Missouri in 1820 (U. S. Census, 1830. p. 23 of Schedule of United States
Census, 1790, 1800, 1810, 1820): Cape Girardeau, 2,658; Cooper, 3,383; FrankUn,
1,190; Howard, 6,160; Jefferson, 867; Lincoln, 799; Madison, 901; Montgomery,
1,425; New Madrid, 1,068; Pike, 1,749; St. Charles, 1,857; Ste. Genevieve, 2,071;
St. Louis, 4,837; Washington, 1,286; Wayne, 750. If the same apportionment
for delegates had obtained that was provided for representatives of the lower
house of the general assembly by the law of February 1, 1817 (Mo. Ter. Laws,
pp. 550f.), i. e., one representative for every flve hundred free white male inhabit
ants in each county, there would have been flfty-four delegates, of which twenty-
seven would have been elected by the counties north of the Missouri Eiver in
cluding Cooper county. Instead of this there was apportioned to those counties
only flfteen delegates out of a total of forty-one. As a matter of fact, the Boone's
Lick Country, including Cooper county and the counties north of the Missouri
Eiver, contained about one-half of both the total population and the free white
male population of the territory in 1820. This section contained 15,373 free
white male inhabitants, and the rest of the territory 15,628; the former had a
total population of 32,859 persons, the latter, 33,745.
On the other hand, if the basis of apportionment for delegates had been the
same that had been provided for representatives of the lower house of the terri
torial general assembly by the law of December 21, 1818, (Mo. Ter. Laws, pp.
609f.) i. B., one representative for every seven hundred free white male inhabitants
in each county, there would have been thirty-six, perhaps thirty-eight, delegates;
of these the northem part of Missouri, including Cooper county, would have
elected twenty-one.
"Missouri Gazette, June 9. 1819; Oct. 20, 1819; Jan. 26, 1820; FUnt, Recol
lections, p. 201; Missouri Intelligencer, Apr. 1, 1820; Apr. 22, 1820.

72 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
government. The frontier Missouri River people wanted the
capitol as far west as possible, or at least centrally located.
They knew that the other districts would oppose this. On such
an issue, the number of delegates which a section could produce
was of the greatest importance. The only hope left to the
Boone's Lick people was the calling of another election under a
new apportionment, as provided for in section four of the En
abling Act."* It is now necessary to explain as far as possible
why such an unjust apportionment was made; one of the first,
but not the last, that has occurred in the history of this State.
Scott, in a letter to the people of Missouri, announcing
his candidacy to Congress, which appeared in the St. Louis

" The Missouri Intelligencer of April 1, 1820, gives the population of the
Boone's Lick Country as 12,000. In an article in the Missouri Intelligencer of
April 22, 1820, by one signing himself "Simon Crabtree," the following general
statements are made that show how conversant the Howard-Cooper people were
with the facts regarding this whole matter: Congress made the apportionment
of delegates on the basis of the enumeration of 1818; by the enumeration of 1819
Howard and Cooper counties are entitled to twelve and not eight delegates; in
1818 Howard and Cooper had 4,128 free white males which, at one representative
to each SOO, gives eight representatives. (Note: There was no enumeration
made in 1818, but the following statement shows that there was one made in 1819.
It is important to notice this, as it will later be used in considering Scott's apology
or explanation of this Congressional apportionment of 1820.) Now Howard
has 3,862 free white males, and Cooper, 2,697, which would aUow these counties
seven and flve delegates respectively (Note: This was far too low, as has been
seen above.); in order to get the seat of government as near the center of State
as possible, these counties must have more representatives; the EnabUng Act
permits the first convention to order a new election, and Congress inserted this
provision knowing that eight new counties had been made, and that Missouri
Territory north of the Missouri River had increased in population ; those delegates
favoring the seat of government in St. Louis wiU oppose a new election ; therefore
send men who will stand out for this. Pike county on Salt Eiver has one repre
sentative, and it possibly should have five; Lincoln and St. Charles counties
should also have more representatives, as they have greatly increased since 1818
(Note: Although Lincoln county was slightly discriminated against, the injustice
done was nothing in comparison with the under apportionment of Pike, Howard,
and Cooper counties; and St. Charles was not entitled to more than her three
delegates, according to the United States Census of Missouri of 1820.); and in
short, the population of all the new counties erected since the enumeration of
1818 was guessed at.
In the same issue of the Intelligencer appeared an article by David Todd,
announcing, on April 14, 1820, his candidacy as a delegate from Howard county.
In this, Mr. Todd says that the seat of government should be centraUy located,
but that "its immediate location in a central portion cannot be reasonably an
ticipated, when we refiect how unequal our representation is when compared with
the lower part of the State ; but efforts will be requisite to insure such a location
even within a few years hence."
On May 13, 1820, an anonymous article under the caption, "A Missourian,"
appeared in the Missouri Intelligencer in which it is stated that, in order to get

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 73
Enquirer, August 2, 1820, gave quite a lengthy explanation or
apology for the apportionment."* It is important in reading
this explanation of Scott's to remember that he was running
for Congress. In the first place, Scott stated that the appor
tionment of delegates was in his hands, and that, excepting
three counties, the only enumeration of the inhabitants he had
was the census of 1817, which was of little value, not only on
account of its age, but especially because eight new counties
had been erected in 1818 from the old counties."' In short he
admitted that in apportioning the delegates for twelve coun
ties, "it was neither more nor less than a matter of guess." He
excused this ignorance on his part by citing the difficulties of
the members of the convention when they apportioned the
state senators and representatives to the first legislature, who,
through lack of evidence on the population of the several coun
ties, were themselves forced to compromise on this point.
Finally, he stated that he had provided a remedy in the form
of a new election and a new convention for correcting any dis
crimination in the apportionment of delegates.
This remedy for unequal apportionment was also included
in the fourth section of the Enabling Act of Illinois."' The
wording in both acts on this point is practically the same, and
the slightest examination discloses its inherent defect. In
effect, it placed the power of making a just apportionment in
the hands of those who had been favored by an unjust appor
tionment, and in usual political practice such a provision has

the seat of government near the center of the State, it will be necessary to call a
new election, wherein Howard and Cooper counties would have more represent
atives. And on May 20, 1820, another article under the caption. "A Voter,"
states that the greatest thing in this convention is to be "properly represented
according to the population of the several counties."
All these quotations and briefs of articles that appeared in the Missouri
Intelligencer during the spring of 1820 have been given in order to show how
keenly aUve and wide awake the Boone's Lick people were on this matter of the
apportionment of the delegates.
" This address of Mr. Scott's also appeared in the Missouri Intelligencer of
August 12, 1820.
»' Scott, in his letter, in referring to the eight old counties that were divided
so as to form fifteen counties, probably includes Lawrence county among the eight.
The eight new counties erected in 1818 were Wayne, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin,
Cooper, Pike, Lincoln and Montgomery.
•' Stat, at Large, III, 428fl. (Act of April 18, 1818).

74 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
been found to be about as efficacious as a prohibition against
gerrymandering when the three branches of the government
are of one political machine. The mere fact that the convention
did not apply this remedy ought not, as Scott thought it should,
exculpate him from censure.
That part of Scott's explanation which attempted to
excuse his poor apportionment by citing the example of the
delegates' compromise on legislative apportionment, appears
to us the merest sophistry. Scott's difficulty in apportioning
delegates, and the difficulty of the convention in apportioning
representatives and senators, require only a few words to show
their dissimilarity. Scott may have been in ignorance regarding
the population of most of Missouri's counties, but it has been
seen from articles that appeared in the Missouri Intelligencer
that the delegates from Howard and Cooper at least knew ap
proximately, if not exactly, the total number of white males in
these two counties in 1819. There is no record besides Scott's
statement that the convention delegates were embarrassed and
finally forced to compromise on the apportionment of repre
sentatives and senators, but if such a condition existed it can
easily be explained on the basis of the conflicting wishes of the
several groups of delegates who were looking out for their own
interests, perhaps at the expense of a just apportionment.
The compromise in the convention, if there was one, was more
probably based on interest than on ignorance; and the fact
that certain counties had more delegates than they were en
titled to probably helped to render a just apportionment impos
sible. But even though laboring under this difficulty, there
was a far closer approximation to true representation according
to population as followed by the Convention than by Scott."*
In fact, considering the overwhelming strength of the delegates
from those counties containing a minority of, the inhabitants,
as opposed by the comparatively few delegates from such
populous counties as Howard, Cooper, and Pike, it is remark-

" See Schedule to Constitution of 1820, sec. 7. Following is a Ust of the
counties of Missouri in 1820, and the number of delegates apportioned to each
by Scott, and the number of representatives in the first State Legislature appor
tioned to each by the convention, together with the number of delegates that
each county would have had if either the session act of the Missouri Territorial

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress.

75

able that such a just apportionment was made by the convention.
That this body knew the approximate population of each county
is evident from the number of representatives assigned to the
several counties. In only five counties did a representative
represent less than fifteen hundred persons, and these five
counties elected only twelve representatives out of a total of
thirty-nine. In only one county did a representative represent
over two thousand persons, and this was in the case of Madison,
with its population of 2,047, to which was allotted one repre
sentative. All the other counties were given one representative
on a basis of population ranging from 1500 to 1873 persons. A
representative from St. Louis county represented 1,622 persons,
and from Howard county 1,678. Such an equality would have
been remarkable under more propitious circumstances, and
stands out in striking contrast to the apportionment in the
Enabling Act.

Legislature of February 1, 1817, or that of December 21, 1818, had been followed
in this apportionment. Cf. this with the population of the several counties as
set forth in note 91, supra.

Counties.

Delegates, if
apportioned by act of
Missouri
Legislature
Feb. 1, 1817.

Delegates, if
apportioned by act of
Missouri
Legislature
Dec. 21, 1818.

Delegates to
Convention by act of
Congress,March 6,
1820.

Eepresent atives in
First State
Legislature.

Cape Girardeau 
Cooper . . .

562
12 111
22
334 92 1

34 1
8 1
1 1
2 1
2 2
2(3) 6(7) 11

5
3 1
5 111
22 1
3483 1

44

2

8

Jefferson 

1

Lincoln 

1

1

Montgomery 

2

2
Pike 
2
St. Charles 
3
4
st Louis
6
Washington 
2 1
54
36
41
43
76 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
In concluding this matter of the apportionment of the
delegates, it may be said that it could hardly have been more
unjust to certain counties; that Scott's apology or explanation
is more plausible before than after examination; that his ignor
ance of the development and increase of population in the
Boone's Lick and Salt River countries was almost inexcusable,
considering the publication of four newspapers in Missouri in
1819; and, finally, that his guessing at the apportioning of the
delegates is remarkable, if nothing more, in its inaccuracy,
being favorable towards the Mississippi River counties and their
dependencies, and unfavorable to the northern and western
frontier centers of population.
The discussion of the remainder of section three of the
Enabling Act will now be resumed. The delegates were to be
elected on the first Monday and two succeeding days of the
following May, and the election was to be conducted in the same
manner as those for representatives to the General Assembly.
Section four provided that the delegates should meet in
convention at the seat of government on the second Monday
of the following June and were given the privilege of adjourning
to another place, and also of holding another election and ap
portionment of delegates if they saw fit to do so. This con
vention was given power "to form a Constitution and state
government for the people within the said territory" of Mis
souri, provided: 1st, that the same "shall be republican" and
"not repugnant to the constitution of the United States;" 2d,
that the state legislature "shall never interfere with the primary
disposal of the soil of the United States," etc.; 3d, that "no tax
shall be imposed on lands, the property of the United States;"
and 4th, that "in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed
higher than residents." This entire section is practically the
same as that of the Illinois Enabhng Act of April 18, 1818.""
Section five provided that "until the next general census
shall be taken, the said State shall be entitled to one repre
sentative in the House of Representatives of the United States."
In section six were set forth five propositions for the ac
ceptance or rejection of the convention. If accepted by that

•• stat. at Large, III. pp. 428fl.

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 11
body they are to be binding upon the United States. The
first proposition provided a grant to the State of the sixteenth
section of land or its equivalent in each township for the use
of schools in that township. The Territorial General Assembly
in its third and sixth resolutions of November 22, 1818, had
requested Missouri's delegate in Congress to "use his exertions
to procure" from Congress a donation of "all vacant lots and
pieces of ground, in towns or villages in which they lie, for
the support of schools," and also two per cent of the sales of
public lands in Missouri "for the support of the schools in
the State." In this instance Congress adhered to its general
custom of granting the sixteenth section of land in each town
ship for the support of schools. Resting largely on this foun
dation grant and other Congressional grants is the present public
school system of Missouri, with its State school fund which ranks
among the largest of the several States. This grant was the
origin of the "township school fund."!"" General regulations
relating to this grant were included in Article VI of the Missouri
Constitution of 1820.
The second proposition provided a grant by the national
government to Missouri of "all salt springs, not exceeding twelve
in number, with six sections of land adjoining each" for the use
of this State. This grant was placed under the regulation of
the State Legislature and it was provided "that the legislature
shall never sell or lease the same, at any one time, for a longer
period than ten years, without the consent of Congress." The
Missouri Territorial Legislature on November 22, 1818, had
in its first resolution asked the following donation from Con
gress: "Lead mines, with one section of land adjoining to
each, and salt springs, with four sections of land adjoining each,
to be leased for the use of the State." Delegate Scott said that
he asked for a grant of some of the numerous lead mines of
Missouri, but that this request was refused.!"!
""Encyc. Hist. Mo. V. 504.
""St. Louis Enquirer, Aug. 2, 1820. Letter of John Scott to the people
of Missouri in his candidacy to Congress. FoUowing is a part of this document,
which has already been referred to:
"At the time of passing the law authorizing us to form a constitution and
assume a state government, I perhaps had unexpected success in obtaining liberal
grants, and donations to the state, for in addition to the grants usually made to

78 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Congress provided in its third proposition a grant of five
per cent of the net proceeds of the sale of public lands in Mis
souri made after January 1, 1821, "for making public roads
and canals." Of this sum, three-fifths was under the direction
of the state legislature for these objects within the State; and
two-fifths under Congress for building highways leading to this
State. It is interesting to note in this connection the requests
made by the Missouri Territorial Legislature of 1818. Be
sides the three per cent grant under the direction of the Legis
lature "for opening roads and canals, and building bridges,
within the State," that body also asked for a nine per cent grant
under the direction of Congress to be applied as follows: 1st,
one per cent "for perfecting the water communications between
the Mississippi and lake [sic] Michigan, by the Illinois and
Ouisconsin rivers;" 2d, six per cent "for continuing the national
western turnpike road, from Wheeling, on the Ohio, to Saint
Louis;" and 3d, two per cent "for opening a road direct from
Saint Louis to New Orleans." From this is seen the great
amount of concern that was centered in 1818 in Missouri over
this question of roads and canals. Considering the great extent

new states of two per cent out of the sales of the public lands to be laid out in roads
and canals leading to the state, and three per cent from the same sales, to be
appropriated to objects of Internal improvement within the state exclusively under
the control of our own legislature, together with one section of land in each town
ship, for the use of schools in these townships respectively, and the townships of
land given for the erection .and support of a state university, I was so fortunate
as to obtain an extraordinary donation of twelve salt springs to be selected by
the legislature, with six sections of land attached to each, to be used for state
purposes. Those springs I hope, if prudently, economicaUy and judiciously
managed, wiU form a source of revenue to no small amount, the happy effects of
which wiU be at no distant period to lighten the taxes, and burthens of the people.
— I also selected other grants for state purposes, such as an additional per cent
for purposes both of external and internal improvement and a portion of the
numerous lead mines with which our country abounds; these however were re
fused, but the residue of the salt springs, and the lead mines, after the adjourn
ment of the several private claims, will doubtless be disposed of as other pubUc
lands, and become subject to individual enterprise, thereby increasing our sources
of commerce, and lessen to the people, the price of one of the most important
necessaries of life."
Eegarding Scott's remarkable success in obtaining so many salt springs, it
might be noted that the second proposition in the sixth section of the IlUnois
Enabling Act a grant was made to IlUnois of aU the salt springs in that state,
together with the land reserved for the use of same. (Stat, at Large, III. 428fl.)
We are not conversant with any work that treats of the history of these salt
springs. The Encyclopedia of the History of Missouri, V. 477, contains a para
graph on the salt springs and "Saline Lands."

Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 79
of the public domain at that time, it is perhaps true that more
was asked for roads than for education.!"^
Congress granted to this State, in its fourth proposition,
"four entire sections of land" "for the purpose of fixing their
seat of government thereon." The Missouri Territorial Legis
lature in 1818 had asked Congress for a grant of "one entire
township, to be disposed of as the legislature of the State shall
direct, for the purpose of raising a fund for erecting State build
ings, at the permanent seat of government." This rather ex
travagant request seems to have met with little favor in Congress,
and was pared down to four sections of public land to be used
for this purpose.
The fifth and last proposition of Congress contained a
grant of thirty-six sections of land "together with the other lands
heretofore reserved for that purpose" for the use of a seminary
of learning. The management of this grant was vested in the
State Legislature, and in section two of article VI of the Mis
souri Constitution of 1820, general regulations were set forth
regarding it.!"' -pj^g grant for a university or seminary of learn
ing is the same as was requested of Congress by the territorial
legislature of 1818. Included under this fifth proposition were
two provisos which were ratified by the Missouri constitutional
convention of 1820 in "An Ordinance" of acceptance on July
19, 1820. In general, these two provisos were: 1st, that these
five propositions were conditional on the consent of the Mis
souri constitutional convention providing by ordinance that

10! "This is a state fund made up of the proceeds of 3 per cent of all sales of
United States pubUc lands sold in the territory and State of Missouri, which by
the act of Congress of 1822 were to be paid over to the State and used for the
construction of roads and canals, three-fifths on works leading to the State. The
receipts are smaU — only $597 in 1897 and J228 in 1898. The money is equaUy
divided between the counties." Ibid., V. 366.
In the Enabling Act of Illinois, Congress donated two per cent of the sale
of public lands in that State to be used for making roads leading to the new state,
and this was placed under the regulation of Congress ; and three per cent was placed
under the legislature of Illinois for the encouragement of learning, of which sum
one-sixth was for a coUege or university. (Stat, at Large, III., 428fl.)
103 The Encyclopedia of the History of Missouri, VI. 776, in an article on the
University of Missouri, states that one of the permanent interest-bearing endow
ments of that institution is the foUowing: "Proceeds of sales of forty-six thousand
acres of seminary lands donated by Congress March 6, 1820, invested in a State
certificate of indebtedness at six per cent per annum interest — $122,000.00."
A similar grant was made to Illinois. (See Stat, at Large, III. 428fl.)

80 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
all public lands of United States sold after January 1, 1821,
should be exempt from all state, county or township taxes for
five years from date of sale; and 2d, that bounty lands granted
for military services during the war of 1812 should be exempt
from taxes for three years from date of the patents providing
these lands are held by the patentees or their heirs.
Section seven of the Enabling Act provided that an au
thenticated copy of the constitution of Missouri when framed,
be transmitted to Congress. This was duly done by the Con
vention of 1820.
The last section of this act, section eight, contained the
famous First Missouri Compromise, which has already been
discussed; and also provided a brief fugitive slave enactment.

CHAPTER III.
POPULAR OPINION IN MISSOURI, 1819.
It is our purpose in this chapter to set forth the sentiment
that prevailed in Missouri following the failure of the Fifteenth
Congress in its second session (1818-1819) to pass an Enabhng
Act for Missouri; in the next chapter we will consider the elec
tion of delegates to the Missouri constitutional convention of
1820. The one is a study of the wave of protest and indigna
tion that swept over Missouri after the House of Representatives
during the winter of 1819 had attempted to impose a slavery
restriction clause on that territory as a requisite for permission
to form a state constitution ; the other is not only a consideration
of the election of delegates to Missouri's first constitutional con
vention, but also includes a treatment of the sentiment which
prevailed in Missouri Territory in 1820 on the question of
slavery. The former deals with Missouri's attitude towards
Congress when that body attempted slavery restriction in Mis
souri: the latter considers, among other things, Missouri's atti
tude towards slavery itself.
The two attitudes are to a certain degree distinct, but the
influence of the one on the other is always present. Questions
arise that illustrate this latter point with clearness. For
example: how much of Missouri's protest in 1819 against any
Congressional restriction of slavery in this State was based on
Missouri's constitutional scruples, and how much rested on her
desire and determination to perpetuate slavery within her
boundaries? or: to what extent was Missouri's election of pro-
slavery and anti-restriction slavery delegates to her constitu
tional convention the result of her indignation against the
attempt made by Congress to impose a slavery restriction on
this State? We believe, however, that although thus closely
related, these two subjects logically demand separate consid
eration. In this chapter we will describe the sentiment in Missouri
in 1819 as revealed (1) in the resolutions adopted at various
M S— 6 (81)

82 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
public meetings, (2) in the toasts drunk at public celebrations
and dinners, (3) in the presentments of Grand Juries, (4) in the
newspaper editorials, and (5) in the individual articles that ap
peared over noms-de-guerre. These are summarized, and from
them together with the accounts of travelers in Missouri during
that time are reached certain, definite conclusions on the subject
at hand.! One of the most reliable sources of information showing the
sentiment in Missouri over the action of Congress during its
session of 1818-1819, is the protests and resolutions drawn up
and adopted at those public meetings, scattered over the Ter
ritory, that were assembled solely for this purpose. These
public meetings were held from April to September of 1819 in
the seven counties of Montgomery, St. Louis, Howard,^ Wash
ington, Ste. Genevieve, New Madrid and Cape Girardeau.
No similar bodies are met with during the winter of 1820,' but
in the spring of that year public gatherings again made their
appearance in Missouri. These latter meetings did not, how
ever, consider the past action of Congress, except in a very
general way, but devoted their attention to the discussion of
slavery within the proposed State and to the election of delegates
to the constitutional convention. The popular gatherings of
1819 were almost wholly bodies that protested against the de
layed admission of Missouri, and directed their protests against
the majority in the House of Representatives who had attempted
restricting slavery in the new state. Naturally the subject of
slavery in se was discussed and sometimes included in the
declarations of these meetings, and some light on the sentiment
in Missouri on slavery can be obtained from their expressed

1 The satisfactory and comprehensive character of the source material con
sulted obviates our referring to any secondary authority. Such secondary au
thorities as appear in foot-notes in the conclusions are mentioned only incidentaUy.
and not as substantiating or negativing any conclusion drawn by us.
' The public meeting of Howard county which was held in FrankUn, Mis
souri, represented the people of the entire Boone's Lick Country including Cooper
county. " This is not remarkable as the inhabitants of Missouri entertained the hope
that the Congress of 1819-1820 would pass an enabling act for this State and not
repeat the history of the session of 1818-1819. They undoubtedly had decided
to wait till the end of the 1819-20 session before taking any action, and con
sidering their recent activity in this line during the preceding summer, this was
quite a reasonable course to foUow.

Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 83
language ; but it must be emphasized here that these declarations
on their surface were essentially protests against Congressional
restriction. Whatever statements they made on the question
of slavery in se are to be very carefully accepted or rejected
and then only after strict historical criticism. Their greatest
value on this point lies in their proper interpretation by the
historian after a survey of the entire field of related facts has
been made.
The first public meeting of this kind was held on the 28th
of April, 1819 by the citizens of Montgomery county.* After
much discussion three declarations and four resolutions were
unanimously adopted. They declared that Missouri was
entitled to admission under both the United States constitution
and the treaty of cession, and that the only legal restriction
that was applicable was that her state constitution should be
republican; that Congress had hitherto appeared to them to be
the "guardian of the inherent principles of freedom" but that
the last House of Representatives had regarded Missouri "with
the jealous eye of a partial step mother," and that Alabama
had been admitted while this territory had been refused, unless
its people "would stoop to a condition, which degrades them
below the rank of free men, and lays the foundation of [a]
slavery more abject than that which Congress pretends to be
so zealous to reform;" that they viewed the action of the late
House of Representatives as tantamount to a declaration "that
they have a right to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever, a
principle which United America resisted even to blood, in her
glorious struggle for independence." They therefore resolved
that the attempted restriction on Missouri's admission was "a
daring stretch of power, an usurpation of our most sacred
rights, unprecedented, unconstitutional, and in open violation
of the 3d article of the treaty of cession entered into with France ;"
that they would "never cease to resist with firmness all such
encroachments upon their rights" by every possible consti
tutional means;" that they regretted the necessity causing this
protest, but duty impelled them to protect their constitution
against "foreign or domestic foes;" that the present proceedings
'Mo. Gaz., May 19, 1819; St. Louis Enq., May 12, 1819.

84 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
be printed in the St. Louis papers. This meeting was a duly
organized body with a president or chairman and a secretary,
as were all the other meetings. It dealt with statehood and
protested against congressional restriction being placed on Mis
souri's admission. Only once is slavery referred to : in the second
declaration doubt is cast on the zeal of Congress in its reforms
of slavery. However great their indignation, the framers of
this protest were remarkably conservative and moderate in
their language.
The second public meeting of protest was held in the city of
St. Louis on May 15, 1819, and represented both the city and
county of that name.* The meeting was held at the court house
and met "pursuant to the request contained in the presentment of
the Grand Jury of the last Superior Court." A large assem
blage of both French and American citizens of note were in at
tendance, as well as strangers. The importance of this meeting
is easily seen not only in the large body of citizens present but
also in the men who guided it. Colonel Alexander McNair
was its president and the Honorable David Barton secretary;
both of these were delegates to the constitutional convention
of 1820, and later the one was elected Missouri's first State
Governor, the other one of her first United States Senators.
Thomas Hart Benton, Missouri's United States Senator for
thirty years, was the principal speaker, and laid before the
meeting the first six resolutions, which were unanimously
adopted after their phraseology had been adjusted by such
eminent men as William C. Carr, Henry Geyer, Edward Bates,
and Joshua Barton.
The first resolution adopted declared: "That the Congress
of the United States have no right to control the provisions of a
state constitution, except to preserve its republican character." '

' The (St. Louis) Mo. Gaz., of May 19. 1819, contains a copy of the nine
resolutions adopted together with a brief account of the meeting and its organiza
tion. A very complete account of this meeting, together with Thomas Hart
Benton's speech delivered in defense of the resolutions he submitted for the
ratification of the meeting, and also a copy of the resolutions adopted, are found
in the St. Louis Enq., of May 19, 1819.
¦ Benton's resolutions are not given verbatim in the report of the meeting
by the Enquirer of May 19. 1819. but only what his resolutions "imported."
The import of Benton's six resolutions is the same as the first six adopted.

Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 85
The second resolution stated that to prohibit slavery in Mis
souri would be "equally contrary to the rights of the State, and
to the welfare of the slaves themselves." ' The third resolu
tion declared Missouri's population so much exceeded that of
other territories when admitted that the obstruction of the
majority in the last House of Representatives to admitting her
"was an outrage on the principles of the American Constitution,
and a direct infraction of the third article of the treaty of
cession." ' The fourth resolution stated: "That the right of
the Missouri territory to be admitted into the union of the
states, depends not upon the will of Congress, but upon the
treaty of cession, and the principles of the federal constitution."
The fifth resolution is so startling and bold in its language that
it is given here in full: "Sth Resolves, That the people of this
territory have a right to meet in convention by their own au
thority, and to form a constitution and state government,
whenever they shall deem it expedient to do so, and that a second
determination on the part of Congress to refuse them admittance
upon an equal footing with the original states, will make it ex-

' Benton in his argument supporting this resolution said the proposed slavery
restriction infringed Missouri's sovereignty as protected by both the Federal
constitution and the treaty of cession, and denied to Missourians the right of
"deciding the question of slavery according to their own wiU." He added that
it was "unfriendly to the slaves themselves" as it tended to confine them to the
South where their condition was notoriously harsher and more severe than in the
North. He said "that the eflect of the restriction was not to diminish the quantum
of slavery in the EepubUc," as in lUinois where a similar restriction appUed it
had not given liberty to the slaves and "a free black was [a] rare bird there, unless
he was a refugee from a neighboring State." Nor was the restriction of any
value in Illinois, he said, as appUed "to those which it intended should be born
free" since "they were not born there, but in the south, to which their mothers
are carried before delivery." He concluded his argument on this resolution by
saying that if the restrictions went "forward to the time (if such a time was ahead)
when the abolition of slavery throughout the Eepublic should be the order of the
day" then "it might be that the people of Missouri would go voluntarily as far
. as any other portion of the union ; but uutil that time arrives, no process
of reasoning can make it i;ight that they should be forced to the surrender of their
slaves" etc.
'Benton supported this resolution by stating: (1) that Missouri's popula
tion was larger than that of the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, and
Mississippi when admitted; (2) that Missouri's training as a territory better
justified her admission than that of other territories; (3) that the character of
Missouri's settlers from Tennessee, Kentucky, and the mother states of these
two was high enough for governing either themselves or others; and (4) that
both the constitution and the treaty of cession made it imperative upon Congress
to admit Missouri.

86 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
pedient to exercise that right." " Continuing on this point the
sixth resolution stated: "That a constitution so formed cannot
be disapproved by Congress for any other cause, than for anti-
republican features; and if disapproved upon any other pretext,
it will be equivalent to an attempt to exclude the territory of
Missouri from the federation of the states." *" Benton in con
cluding his speech favoring these six resolutions "begged the
meeting to consider well the resolutions which were offered.
The eyes of the American people were upon them. They were,
the first to whose lot it had fallen to make a fair and regular
stand against the encroachment of Congress upon the Sovereignty
of the States. The resolutions were intended to be mild in
their language, strong in their import; and if once adopted, he
knew that they would never be lightly abandoned." The St.
Louis Enquirer stated that "several citizens were ready to
speak" in support of these resolutions after they had been read;
"but no one" spoke against them and they were "unanimously
passed." A resolution approving Scott's conduct in Congress
in defending Missouri was proposed by David Barton and was
unanimously passed. Carr submitted a resolution recom
mending similar meetings throughout the Territory. Some
opposed this on the ground that although favoring its object
they wished all such meetings "to be so entirely the spontaneous
act of the people, as not even to be under the influence of a
request." The resolution was, however, passed by a consider
able majority. The final resolution adopted at this meeting

• Benton said in support of the right of Missouri to hold a constitutional
convention without the authority of a previous law that examples of such action
could be found in the convention of the original colonies when they withdrew
from England and also in the case of Tennessee in 1796. In regard to the expe
diency of calling a convention, Benton favored waiting the action of the next ses
sion of Congress, and if that body repeated the history of the last session, then
"as one of the people he was ready to declare himself now, and to stand com
mitted from this day forth upon the issue of the declaration: He would be for
the call of the convention, etc." Benton then proceeded to attack the selfish and
poUtical motives that had actuated the majority of the last House of Eepre
sentatives. '" Benton strongly endorsed this scheme aud said that Congress would have
to accept such a Constitution as it had done with the Tennessee Constitution
of 1796. He added: "No matter what might be the honest wishes of some
mistaken philanthropists; or the selfish or criminal projects of some designing
politicians. The dreams of the first would be at an end; the second could not
proceed without peril to themselves."

Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 87
was that the resolutions be signed and printed and a copy for
warded to Missouri's Delegate in Congress.
This meeting was so open and well attended, and included
so many of the leaders of St. Louis county, that we have no
hesitancy in accepting it as expressing the real feelings and
sentiments of the people of that district on the question of
Congressional restriction of slavery in Missouri.!! The gathering
unanimously opposed such restriction, and although a tone of
calmness and conservatism pervades the resolutions, the meeting
went so far as to express its wishes on questions which might
arise in the future. Benton's speech throws some light on the
Missourian's attitude on slavery. He opposed slavery in gen
eral terms but favored it in Missouri. He considered slavery
a local issue and resented Congressional interference, and looked
with suspicion on Congress' philanthropy when directed to one
spot — Missouri.
In pursuance of the eighth resolution adopted May 15,
1819, recommending public meetings throughout the Terri
tory, a number of citizens of St. Ferdinand township, in the
county of St. Louis, met on June 5, 1819, and unanimously
adopted a set of anti-slavery resolutions.!! So far as we could
learn, this was the only anti-slavery public meeting held in
Missouri in that year. The resolutions adopted at this meeting
stated : "the amendment to the Missouri state bill in the House
of Representatives of the United States, meets with our full
approbation;" "slavery is contrary to the term freedom;"
slavery "is one of the greatest evils" in the United States "and
if not protested against" will "bring upon us" the just censure
of posterity, "as well as the judgment of a just, but angry God;"
public meetings should be held throughout the territory to
protest against the "threatening curse of the further admittance

" John O'FaUon in a letter, dated St. Louis, May 20, 1819, to Gen. T. A.
Smith wrote as follows on this meeting: "At a large assemblange [sic] of the Town
and country people on last Saturday [sic] were unanimously adopted some very
strong resolutions in regard to the conditions attempted to be imposed on the
Bill for erecting this Ty. into a state; I hope, most ardently, that similar ones
may be adopted by the other counties, which, if known abroad, would remove
the apprehension that prevent numbers of slaveholders from removing to this
country." In T. A. Smith Mss., State Hist Soc. of Mo.
¦' Mo. Gaz., June 23, 1819.

88 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
of involuntary slavery in the future state of Missouri." More
of a similar nature was included, and it may be definitely
stated that these resolutions were strongly anti-slavery in
character. They were ordered printed in the Missouri Gazette,
and they appeared in that paper. From the lack of comment
on this meeting by the Missouri press of that day, and from the
general description of it and its officers, there is a strong prob
ability that it was little more than a mere township meeting
and was not at all a numerous gathering.
The next public meeting in Missouri assembled for the
purpose of discussing the question of Congressional restriction
was held on June 18th at Franklin, Howard County.!'' A
committee was appointed to draft resolutions against the "un
warrantable restrictions" on Missouri contemplated by Con
gress, and it was resolved that these resolutions be read at a
public meeting to be held at Franklin on July 5th for the ap
probation of the people.
The greatest publicity then possible was given this "Na
tional Anniversary" meeting on July 5th, and hundreds of
citizens of the Boone's Lick Country were present in Franklin
on that day.!' ^he committee appointed on June 18th reported
to this body six resolutions, which were unanimously adopted.
These resolutions voiced the strong protest of the Boone's Lick
people against the proposed Congressional restriction on sla
very in Missouri. They emphasized the point that Missouri
should have the exercise of her own municipal affairs, among
which they placed "the establishment or exclusion of slavery."
The resolutions were short and did not take up the considera
tion of slavery in se. It was resolved that these resolutions
be printed in the Franklin "Missouri Intelligencer," the St.
Louis newspapers, and the "National Intelligencer" of Wash
ington, D. C.
The remarks of Henry Carroll made at this meeting are
worthy of notice. Besides discussing the general constitutional

"Mo. Intel!., June 25, 1819.
" IMd., July 9, 1819. So important was this meeting in the eyes of the
editor of the Mo. Intell., that the account of it crowded out even the advertise
ments for that week.

Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 89
phases of the question of restriction and also some of the same
points made by Benton in his speech in St. Louis of May 15th,
Carroll said: "The real question is not the right of Congress
to legislate in the manner proposed for the Territory, but for
the State of Missouri. Once admitted, it is apparent that a
convention might be assembled to alter or modify her consti
tution, and therefore to erase the obnoxious feature. But I do
trust that those among whom I have cast my lot will not 'stoop'
to conquer their rights, and will spurn to juggle for them in a
game of duplicity, trick, or subterfuge." Carroll also said that
he regretted the existence of slavery and that he would help
wipe it out if it would not thereby check immigration from
Southern kinsmen. From this short account of the meeting
it is quite apparent that the sentiment in the Boone's Lick
country on the question of restriction of slavery on the part
of Congress was the same as that which prevailed in St. Louis
and Montgomery counties.
On July 20, 1819, a public meeting of the citizens of Wash
ington county was held at the court house in Potosi, Missouri,
in pursuance of public advertisements.!* There were eight
resolutions unanimously agreed to at this meeting. These
resolutions were, however, practically identical with those
adopted at the St. Louis meeting of May 15th, and therefore,
will not be analyzed.!*
Within two weeks after the Potosi meeting a similar one
was held by the citizens of the county of Ste. Genevieve at the
court house in the town of Ste. Genevieve.!' This meeting was
held on August 2, 1819, and elected General Henry Dodge
president, and Judge John D. Cook secretary of the assembly.
Both of these men were elected as delegates to the constitutional
convention of Missouri in 1820, and later held the high positions

" An account of this meeting and the resolutions adopted appear in all the
newspapers then printed in Missouri: Mo. Gaz., August 4, 1819; St. Louis Enq..
August 4. 1819; Jackson (Missouri) Herald, August 20. 1819; Mo. Intell., (FrankUn)
August 20. 1819.
"' Even the order of the two sets of resolutions is the same except that the
eighth resolution adopted at the St. Louis meeting was omitted from the Potosi
resolutions. " An account of this meeting appears in the Jackson (Missouri) Herald,
August 13, 1819, and in the St. Louis Enq., August 25, 1819.

90 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
in both state and nation. The general tone of the seven resolu
tions adopted at this meeting, although quite similar to that of
the resolutions of the other counties, differs from the latter in
partaking more of a judicial and constitutional character.
Nothing was said concerning slavery, stress being laid on the
United States constitution and the treaty of cession. The only
noteworthy resolution is the seventh, in which the Missouri
Gazette was not mentioned with the other Missouri newspapers
that were requested to print the resolutions of this meeting.
At a meeting of the citizens of New Madrid county on Sep
tember 14, 1819, a set of six resolutions similar to those of Ste.
Genevieve county was adopted.!' 'pj^g third resolution adopted
at New Madrid is the most noteworthy of all, although it con
tains no new declaration. Its language is as follows: "Re
solved, that we believe it to be a part of our absolute rights
to form such a constitution for the government of our state as
we shall deem proper, (provided the same be republican) with
out any control from the general government, or subject to any
conditions imposed by them." These citizens viewed "with
regret and astonishment the assumption of authority on the
part of Congress to dictate" to them "in matters of internal
policy;" and declared that they would "be admitted into the
Union on an equal standing or not at all." The Missouri
Gazette is again omitted from the list of newspapers that were
requested to publish these resolutions.
The last public meeting held in Missouri in 1819 which
was convened expressly for the purpose of protesting against
the attempted restriction of Congress, was in Cape Girardeau
county. A notice of such a meeting to be held in Jackson,
Missouri, on September 18th, is set forth in the Jackson Herald
of September 4, 1819. Its purpose was to consider "the state
of the county!' and the restrictions attempted to be laid upon
the future state of Missouri by the last Congress," etc. After

'.-'Mo. Intell., November 5, 1819; Jackson Herald, September 18, 1819. The
resolutions are given in full in these two papers but are not copied here owing to
the fact that they include nothing new in the way of either argument or protest.
"The author's notes on this quotation contain the abbreviation "Co."; it
is possible that this word is "country" and not "county."

Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 91
a careful examination of the files of the Jackson Herald we
failed to find an account of the proceedings of this meeting.
Of great interest and value are the declarations and protests
that the Mount Pleasant Baptist Association adopted at its
meeting at Mount Zion, Howard county, on September 11-13,
1819. These declarations were addressed "To the Senate and
House of Representatives of the United States of America, in
Congress Assembled," and were signed by Edward Turner as
moderator and Geo. Stapleton as clerk.!" The Boone's Lick
people protested against the restriction of slavery in Missouri
by Congress, and declared it not only violated the constitution
and cession of treaty, but also worked a hardship on the slaves.
They said that "altho with Washington, Jefferson, & every
other person," they regretted "the existence of slavery at all,"
and although they felt it their "duty to alleviate the situation
of the unfortunate beings who" were its subjects among them;
and that although they looked "forward to the time when a
happy emancipation" could "be effected, consistent with the
principles of safety and justice," still they thought that the
constitution and treaty of cession gave Missouri the right to a
free admission without restriction. They also declared that
they maintained that their right to slaves was "secured by the
treaty of cession," and that "the question of slavery" was one
which belonged exclusively to the state to decide.^"

"Mo. Intell., October 1, 1819; Niles' Register, XVII. 200f.
" "The constitution does not admit slaves to be freemen; i[t] does admit
them to be property, and guarantees to the master an ownership, which his fellow-
citizens Uving in another state holding other principles cannot legislate from him;
and as under the constitution, a sister state cannot emancipate those slaves who
flee to Its jurisdiction, and as the power is not expressly delegated to congress,
they cannot emancipate a slave, for the right is reserved to the people. And if
they cannot emancipate a slave in a state, and it be lawful to hold slaves in this
territory, congress neither have the right to emancipate our slaves whUst we Uve
under a territorial form, nor under a state government, for by the treaty of ces
sion, congress are not only bound to admit us into the union, but are bound to
protect us in the free enjoyment of our Uberty and property — and therefore, not
only our rights to admission into the union, but our right to hold slaves is secured
by the treaty of cession, which is ratified by the President and Senate, and also
by several acts of congress."
"And beUeving that the poUcy proposed in the restriction will not only cause
jealousy, foment discord, and shake the foundation of our government, but by
confining them [the slaves] to one smaU district, wiU increase the task, augment

92 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
It is worth noticing that had this association been as pro-
slavery in sentiment as it professed to be anti-slavery, it could
hardly have adopted a stronger set of resolutions favoring that
institution than it did. These resolutions could scarcely have
been welcomed in the anti-slavery section of the Nation as
showing a sentiment in Missouri that favored slavery restriction,
unless extracts were quoted and not the entire document.
Closely related to the resolutions of public meetings in
Missouri in 1819 as showing the sentiment here over the at
tempted restriction by Congress, are some of the toasts drunk
at dinners and celebrations in the proposed State. Those
toasts that bear on the questions of statehood and slavery reflect
public opinion on these subjects and should be carefully con
sidered for the light they throw on this study.
On May 29, 1819, the citizens of Franklin, Howard county,
Missouri, gave a public dinner to Captain Nelson in honor of
the arrival of the steamboat "Independence." ^! Many toasts
were drunk at this dinner and one of the speakers, General Duff
Green, was later elected a delegate from Howard county to the
constitutional convention. Following are several of these
toasts: both their number and language show how concerned
were the banqueters over statehood and related subjects.
"The Missouri Territory — Desirous to be numbered with the States in con
stitutional principles — but determined never to submit to congressional usur
pation." "By Gen. D. Green — The Union — it is dear to us; but liberty is dearer."
"By Stephen Eector, Esq. — may the Missourians defend their rights, if
necessary, even at the expense of blood, against the unprecedented restriction
which was attempted to be imposed on them by the Congress of the U. States."
"By N. Patten, Jr. — The Missouri territory — its future prosperity and
greatness cannot be checked by the caprice by a few men in Congress, while it
possesses a soil of inexhaustible fertility, abundant resources, and a body of in
telligent, enterprising, independent freemen."
"By Maj. J. D. Wilcox — The citizens of Missouri — may they never become
a member of the Union under the restriction relative to slavery."

the pains and rivet the chains of the slaves, we warn you in the name of humanity
itself to beware."
"The time has arrived when it is possible to admit us into the union — we have
all the means necessary for a state government. And believing the question of
slavery is one which belongs exclusively to the state to deside [sic] on, we, on
behalf ol ourselves, our fellow citizens, and of the most solemn faith of the nation,
claim admission into the union on the principles of the Federal Constitution — on
an equal footing with the other states."
'¦ Mo. Intell., June 4, 1819. This steamboat arrived at FrankUn on May
28th and holds the honor of being the flrst steamboat to make the run up the
Missouri Elver.

Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 93
At a dinner given on a like occasion at Chariton, Howard
county, Missouri, on June 1st, at which Major J. S. Findlay
presided and Colonel D. Green was vice-president,^^ the fol
lowing toasts were drunk:
"The Missouri Territory — if not 'embarassed by too much regulation,' It
wiU soon form a distinguished member of the Union."
"The people of Missouri — Keen to discern their rights, and flrm to main
tain them; they acknowledge no arbitrary right of restriction in the formation
of their constitution."
"By Capt. E. M. Desha, of the Marine corps. The Independent Missourians
— may they always reject any improper, unconstitutional restrictions imposed
upon them by the national legislature."
At a public dinner given in St. Louis on June 10th, at which
the principal leaders of the day were present, the following
toasts were drunk.^'
"The members of the late Congress who supported the constitutional rights of
the Territory of Missouri."
"Mr. Scott, the Missouri Delegate in Congress — He spoke our sentiments
in defence of Missouri State rights."
The Future State of Missouri — Equal in sovereignty to the original states,
or — nothing —
Eepeated cheerings — music.
Bonaparte's march — reiterated discharges of artillery" etc.
It was at the various Fourth of July celebrations held on
July 5th, 1819, that the largest number of toasts on this subject
were set forth by the press. In Howard county a large cele
bration was held at Franklin and of the sixteen set toasts and
the twenty-two volunteer toasts, one-half related to the Mis
souri statehood bill.^* One of the former was:
"The People of Missouri — keen to discern their rights, and vigorous in the
defence of them."
Several of the latter were:
"By Doct. J. J. Lowry — The People of the Missouri Territory; may they
be as firm in resisting domestic usurpation; as they have been in repeUing foreign
violence." "By L. W. Boggs, Esq. — The Hon. John Scott, our Delegate to Congress;
he has supported our rights; we wUl support him."
"By Maj. Eichard Gentry — Talmadge and Taylor — a dark room and straight
jackets." "By Maj. T. Berry — The people of the Westem and Southern States; they
ought to view with jealousy the sinister designs of the Eastern states."

" Mo. Intell., June 11, 1819. Both Findlay and Green were later elected
delegates from Howard county.
" St. Louis Eng., June 23, 1819. General Eector was president of the day
and was assisted by Colonel Chouteau, Major Christy, and Colonel Benton.
"Mo. Intell, July 16, 1819.

94 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
In Montgomery county the celebration was held at Marthas-
ville, and the toasts given were similar to the foregoing.'* In
St. Charles several celebrations were held which were noticed
by the press, and the Missouri statehood question was prom
inently set forth in the toasts given.^'
In St. Louis county at least three celebrations were held:
two in the town of St. Louis ; one in Saint Ferdinand township.

" St. Louis Enq., July 14, 1819. Following are a few of the toasts given at
this celebration:
"The members of the late Congress — Who supported the constitution of the
United States, and their treaty with France, in the discussion of the Missouri
state BiU."
"Mr. John Scott — Our member in congress, he supported the rights of his
constituents with a manly dignity in the last session of Congress."
"The people of Missouri — They want no Congressional provision in forming
their constitution, they will provide for themselves."
"Messrs. Shaw and Holmes — Two Yankee republicans, they deserve well
of their country, may they reform the apostate politicians of the north."
"Messrs. Talmadge aud Taylor — Politically insane, may the next Congress
appoint them a dark room, a straight waistcoat and a thin water gruel diet."
"The Sovereignty of the State — May seventy-eight men, inimical to it,
clothed with the authority of the people, never meet again in Congress Hall."
"The Citizens of our Mother States — May they not be deterred from emi
gration to this land of Liberty and Plenty, iu consequence of those unconstitu
tional restrictions attempted to be imposed on us in the late Congress, nor want
confidence in our firmness and integrity to resist such outrages upon our rights
and privileges."
"The Fair of Missouri — May they take none to their arms, nor grace any
with their charms but those who defend the rights of Missouri."
"St. Louis Enq., July 21, 1819; Mo. Gaz., July 14, 28, 1819. FoUowing is
a copy of one of these meetings;
"Monroe, July 5th, 1819.
Mr. Charless.
As a writer stiling himself "A farmer of St. Charles county," has said
so much about the political sentiments of that people; I here send you three
toasts, which were drank and cordially cheered by a number of respectable citi
zens of that county, at a celebration of the 4th instant.
1st. The Senate of the U. States, magnanimous and great — They frowned
on the violence of the lower house, and arrested them, when charging over the
pales of the constitution to seize on the rights of Missouri.
2d. The honorable Henry Clay, esq., speaker of the House of Eepresenta
tives. — Firm and unshaken he arose against the majority, and pointed out to them
the inconsistency of their attempting to legislate away the rights of any part
of the community.
3d. The territory of Missouri — whose rights have been so wantonly as
sailed. — May her grievances be redressed, and when seated among the sister
states, may she forget the abuse they have offered her.
Yours respectfully,
JOHN LINDSEY."

Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 95
One of the St. Louis celebrations was held at "Lucas' spring"
and two of the toasts given were:^'
"The United States — they are the protectors of the territories — their natural
friends — without distrust or jealousy we expect from them a due regard to our
rights." "Our neighbor, the state of IlUnois — homogeneous in its population, it has
not been compelled to compromise or sport with the principles of justice."
At the other celebration in the town of St. Louis, Colonel
Auguste Chouteau was president, and several of the toasts
given were: ''
"The Next Congress — A sacred regard for the Constitution in preference to
measures of supposed expediency, wiU ensure to them the confidence of the
American people." — "Nineteen cheers. Yankee Doodle (music)."
"The Territory of Missouri — With a population of near 100,000 souls, demands
her right to be admitted into the union, on an equal footing with the original
states." — "Nineteen cheers — 'Scott's o'er the border' "
The toasts given at the celebration in Saint Ferdinand
township reflect quite a different sentiment to the public meet
ing held there on June 5, 1819.'" Following are several of the
toasts given:
"The Constitution of the United States — A safe guard to our Liberty."
"Thirteen cheers."
"The Territory of Missouri — May she be admitted into the Union on an equal
footing with the original States, or not received in any other way." — "Drank
standing up. — Twenty-two cheers."
Later in the month of July, 1819, a public dinner was given
at Franklin, Howard county, "to the officers attached to the
expedition destined for the Yellow Stone." Two of the toasts
drunk were:'"
"The Territory of Missouri — to yield to a restriction or condition of what
ever nature at the will of Congress, would be parting with an attribute of sover
eignty." "The citizens of the Missouri territory; a population who understand their
rights, and know how to maintain them."

" Mo. Gaz., July 7, 1819. The springs were owned by Judge John B. C.
Lucas, and the meeting held there was a rival of the Chouteau gathering of that
day. It does not seem to have been so well attended as the other meeting, and
it was not so strong in its protests against Congress. The reference to the homo
geneous character of Illinois' population was a veiled attempt to make prominent
the supposed divided or heterogeneous character of Missouri's population.
"Mo. Gaz., July 14, 1819; Sl. Louis Enq., July 14, 1819. These two toasts
received the largest number of cheers.
" Sl. Louis Enq., July 21, 1819.
" Mo. Intell., July 30, 1819. The dinner was given on the thirteenth of
July.

96 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
The last celebration of this character, recorded by the press,
prior to the passage of the Enabling Act, was by the Irish of
St. Louis on March 17, 1820.'! Qne of the toasts drunk was:
"The Missouri Territory — Her entitled rank among the states of the union,
and a constitution of her own choice."
Excepting the resolutions adopted at the various public
meetings held in Missouri in 1819, perhaps the truest guide to
the sentiment that obtained in this territory at that time re
garding the questions of Congressional restriction of slavery
and incidentally of slavery itself, is the public presentments
and remonstrances of that class of semi-official bodies known as
Grand Juries. There are eight of these documents recorded in
those newspapers of that day which have been preserved in
the various libraries of the country. Seven of these present
ments were framed by the Grand Juries of the Circuit Courts
for the counties of St. Louis, St. Charles, Howard, Jefferson,
Lincoln, Montgomery, and Washington; and one by the Grand
Jurors of the Superior Court of Missouri sitting for the Northern
Circuit. It is thus seen that taken in connection with the
public meetings heretofore described, we are enabled to give
a fairly trustworthy account of the feeling in Missouri in nine
counties of that territory in 1819.
The first Grand Jury to return a presentment of this nature
was that for St. Louis county, of the Circuit Court for the
Northern Circuit of the Territory of Missouri. This present
ment was made on or about April 5, 1819, and is signed by eight
een members of the inquest and attested by the clerk of the
court." It protests against the restriction on Missouri at
tempted by the last Congress, as being contrary to the constitu
tion and the treaty of cession. And states: "Although we
deprecate anything like an idea of disunion,  , yet we
feel it our duty to take a manly and dignified stand for our
rights and privileges "

"Mo. Gaz., March 22, 1820. The date of the celebration is given as Feb
ruary 17th but it is quite probable that this is a typographical error, and should
have been March 17th.
" A copy of this presentment was printed in the Mo. Gaz., April 14, 1819, and
in the St. Louis Enq., April 14, 1819.

Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 97
Following this presentment a similar one was returned,
April 30, 1819, by the Grand Jurors of the Superior Court of
Missouri territory, sitting at St. Louis, for the Northern Cir
cuit." This latter document protests against the attempt made
by Congress to dictate a provision in the constitution of Mis
souri however inconsiderable that provision might be; "but in
the one proposed, the prohibition of the further introduction and
continuance of slavery in the future state of Missouri," it believes
that all the slave-holding states are vitally menaced and threat
ened with eventual destruction. The Grand Jurors further
said that this act of Congress was contrary to the treaty of ces
sion and also "unfriendly to the slaves themselves." They
concluded this protest by stating that they believed "it the
duty of the people of Missouri to make known in the most public
manner that they are acquainted with their own rights and are
determined to maintain them" and recommended "a public
meeting of the citizens at the Court House in St. Louis" on the
15th of May next.
All the Grand Jury presentments returned in 1819 on this
subject after the two protests in April, 1819, at St. Louis, were
in July. One of these was the presentment of the Grand Jury
for the Circuit Court of St. Charles county, which was returned
on July 6th.'* It based its objection to the attempted re
striction by Congress on constitutional grounds and on the
treaty of cession.
The Howard county Grand Jury in their presentment of
July 14th not only set forth the constitutional objections to the
past action of Congress but declared: "It is not now the ques
tion whether the future admission of slavery be just or unjust —
wise or unwise. That question will be met at another time and
another place. We deny that Congress have any right to pass
upon it. It belongs to the people of the future state of Mis
souri, and to them alone." It stated, however, that "The

" A copy of this presentment was printed in the Mo. Gaz., May 12, 1819,
and in the St. Louis Enq., May 5, 1819. Scharf. op. cit., I. 562, also contains
extracts from this document.
"Mo. Intell., July 30. 1819; Mo. Gaz., July 14, 1819.
M S— 7

98 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Grand Jury feel no disposition to impugn the motives of the
majority of the house of representatives." '*
The Grand Jury of Jefferson county also viewed with regret
the attempt made by Congress to dictate an article in Missouri's
Constitution prohibiting the future introduction of slavery in
that state. They said: "That slavery is an evil we do not
pretend to deny, but on the contrary would most cheerfully
join in any measures to abolish it, provided those measures
were not likely to produce greater evils to the people than the
one complained of; but we hold the power of regulating this
matter — of applying a remedy to this evil, to belong to the
states and to the people, and not to Congress." They added:
"The right of holding slaves, although it may not be a natural
right, is one which is allowed by the federal constitution," etc.
Their argument rested entirely on constitutional grounds and
emphasized the right of a state to regulate its internal affairs."
The Grand Jury of Lincoln county presented a very short
protest against the attempted restriction which they considered
contrary to the constitution. They expressed a hope that
when the question of admitting Missouri was again agitated in
Congress that "the true genuine and republican spirit of the
Constitution" be consulted, and, they added, "have its in
fluence unimpeded by mistaken notions of philanthropy or the
direful genius of usurpation." "
The Grand Jury for Montgomery county viewed "the
restrictions attempted to be imposed on the people of the
Missouri territory in the formation of a state constitution" as
"unlawful, unconstitutional, and oppressive." They added
that they hoped those restrictions would "never more be at
tempted; and if they should," they hoped "by the assistance of

» Mo. Intell., July 16, 1819. A full copy of this presentment is foimd in the
Intelligencer and is signed by J. S. Findlay, Benjamin H. Beeves, and eighteen
others. These two men were later delegates to the constitutional convention of
1820. This presentment was returned at FrankUn on July 14. 1819.
"Mo. Gaz., August 11, 1819; Mo. Intell, August 27, 1819; Jackson Herald,
August 20, 1819. The fuU text is given in aU these newspapers.
"Jackson Herald, August 28, 1819; St. Louis Enq., August 18, 1819.

Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 99
the genius of '76, and the interposition of Divine Providence,
to find means to protect their rights." "
The Washington county Grand Jury protested against the
attempted restriction as being as "unwarrantable as it was un
constitutional, and tended not only to abridge them of their
precious rights as freemen to act and judge for themselves, but
also to deprive them, in direct violation of the constitution of
the United States, as of the treaty of cession, of the free en
joyment of a species of property which they lawfully held under
the Spanish government." '"
Excluding the resolutions adopted and toasts drunk at
public meetings, and the presentments made by grand juries,
the most valuable information preserved today that shows the
sentiment in Missouri during 1819 and 1820 over the action of
Congress and the question of slavery, is the editorials in the
newspapers of that territory. Great as is the power of the
press today, it is doubtful if there are three papers in Missouri
who exert so great an influence on so large a proportion of this
State's population as did the Missouri Intelligencer, Missouri
Gazette, and St. Louis Enquirer during the years 1819 and 1820.
This was, we believe, largely due to the fact that they, together
with the Jackson Herald, Independent Patriot and St. Charles
Missourian, held possession of the field of journalism in Mis
souri. But it was also the result of the ability and honesty of
the editors.'" It should be remembered that the editorial

"Jackson Herald, September 4, 1819; St. Louis Enq., August 25, 1819. The
foreman of this Grand Jury was James Talbott, later a delegate from this county
to the constitutional convention of 1820.
"St. Louis Enq., August 4, 1819; Mo., Gaz., August 4, 1819; Jackson Herald,
August 20, 1819; Mo. Intell, August 20, 1819.
" Joseph Charless, editor of the Gazelle, was the pioneer of the Missouri
press, having established and edited successfully the flrst newspaper printed west
of the Mississippi Eiver. After changes in name it today is issued as the St.
Louis Republic. Charless was not only an able and honest editor but a fearless
one as well; his high idealisn on the slavery question during the years 1819 and
the flrst part of 1820 shows his remarkable independence. His farewell letter to
his patrons (Missouri Gazette, September 13, 1820) is his own spirit translated
into words.
Thomas Hart Benton was one of the editors of the Enquirer, and his demo
cratic nobility and resourcefuUness has rarely been equaUed. No statesman of
any land ever followed his own lights more unswerveingly and tried harder to
perfect those Ughts than Benton. No other statesman in Missouri history and
perhaps in the history of this Nation, excepting Washington, ever had a more

100 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
then held a more important and a more prominent place in the
paper than it does today. At least it occupied more relative
space and concentrated on fewer subjects.'! Even at that early
day jealousies existed between editors. The papers printed
outside St. Louis were free from these, but the Gazette and the
Enquirer were bitter rivals and pursued different editorial
policies." However, regarding the slavery restriction clause
attempted to be imposed by Congress on Missouri, all the news
papers voiced their protests in the strongest terms. It was
over the election of the delegates and the question of slavery
itself that the Gazette wandered from the fold and maintained
an attitude as brave and independent as was possible, consider
ing the strength of its foes and the weakness of its position.

absolute control over the voters of his constituency without being aided by some
kind of a machine than Benton did. His integrity was never questioned, and few
were daring enough to challenge his judgments in his presence.
Nathaniel Patton, one of the editors of the Missouri Intelligencer, was an
able and sincere writer. His editorials are sound and their infiuence must have
been great. He reached the western settlements of Missouri, and pubUshed the
only paper in the Boone's Lick Country. His was the first paper published west
of the Mississippi Eiver outside the city of St. Louis. After several changes of
place of pubUcation and in name, it is today issued in Columbia, Missouri, as the
Columbia Herald-Statesman.
Little is known regarding the abiUty and power of the editors of the Jackson
Herald and Independent Patriot, and of the Sl. Charles Missourian. The Jackson
Herald did not appear until the summer of 1819; the St. Charles Missourian ap
peared in the spring of 1820.
" The Missouri newspaper of 1819 and 1820 contained the following general
subjects; foreign news, national news together with copies of speeches delivered
in Congress, such State news as was of the most public nature, editorials, numerous
articles by individuals, letters, a few literary articles (clipped), and advertisements.
The sensational and the personal were omitted except duels. Births, marriages.
and obituaries were stated in two or three lines and frequently in one Une of small
print. As the "boiler-plate" news was then unknown, the paper was "set up"
at home. " The Gazette opposed most of the leading politicians of St. Louis during
1819 and 1820 and was in turn opposed by them. It also opposed John Scott.
Missouri's Territorial Delegate in Congress, and some of its criticisms of Scott
appear rather "far-fetched" today. (Cf. Mo. Gaz., March 10, 1819). Scott in
his turn refused to make any communications to the Gazette. (Cf. Mo. Gaz.,
January 15, 1819.) On the whole, Charless appears to have taken the unpopular
side of the slavery question. He seems to have realized this, and hedged more
and more during the summer of 1820.
The Enquirer warmly espoused and ably championed the popular side of
slavery, and under the guidance of Benton never let pass an opportmiity to score
on its rival.
The rivalry between these two sheets finally degenerated to physical violence
and Charless was assaulted on May 10, 1820, by Isaac N. Henry, one of the edi
tors of the Enquirer. (Mo. Gaz., May 17, 1820).

Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819, 101
In the spring of 1819 the Gazette began its fiercest attacks
on Congress. On April 7th, it said: "It has been reserved for
the House of Representatives of the present Congress to commit
the most gross and barefaced usurpation that has yet been
committed. They have ingrafted on the bill for our admission
into the Union a provision that 'the State Constitution shall
prohibit the further introduction of slavery; . . . . ' Bear in
mind, fellow-citizens, that the question now before us is not
whether slavery shall be permitted or prohibited in the future
State of Missouri, but whether we will meanly abandon our
rights and suffer any earthly power to dictate the terms of our
Constitution." " Although opposing the attempted restric
tion of Congress, the Gazette fearlessly opened its columns to
those writers in Missouri who differed from it on this point,
even though by so doing it lost both influence and subscribers,
and was bitterly criticised. In support of its position, it said:
"On the subject of the Missouri state bill, we have always be
lieved, and still believe, that it can be clearly proved by sound
and logical argument, that the conditions attempted to be an
nexed, are unconstitutional; but although we beHeve this, we
will never close our pages to a fair and liberal discussion of the
subject. Our motto is 'Truth without Fear.' " '* It was only
natural that the Enquirer should take advantage of this atti
tude of Charless's especially since Benton was never known to
have either sympathy or patience for an opponent. The
Gazette replied to the Enquirer on June 16, 1819, as follows:
"For ourselves we wish but one sentiment did prevail, which
we conceive the correct one, viz.: that Congress have no con
stitutional right to impose the restrictions." '* Although op
posing a slavery restriction on Missouri by Congressional

"Scharf, op. cit., I. 561.
" Mo. Gaz., May 12, 1819.
" The Gazette was kept busy at this time in denying its approval of restricting
slavery, and was even charged with emancipation sympathies. In 1820 it openly
came out in favor of slavery restriction and from his editorials Charless appears
to have strongly opposed that institution. During 1819 he hid behind his motto
"Truth without Fear," and let all writers have space and in answering an editorial
ChaUenge his subterfuge argument was his opposition to Congressional restriction,
which he always managed to bring to the front as an answer to any charge of
slavery heresy. It is in the Gazette only that one meels with anti-slavery and slavery
restriction articles.

102 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
action, the Gazette did favor some kind of a slavery restriction
section being incorporated in the proposed state constitution,
and came out openly during the spring of 1820 in favor of those
candidates for delegates whose views on this subject coincided
with its position." On May 3, 1820, the last day of the election
of delegates the Gazette contained this daring editorial together
with a list of the candidates and their position on the slavery
question: "Fellow Citizens, Today is the last opportunity
that is left to you to give your voice in forming a State Con
stitution. You are now called upon for the last time to say
whether aristocracy and tyranny shall prevail — whether a few
nabobs selected by a secret caucus shall be forced upon you as
proper persons to form a constitution for your government, or
whether you will exercise the proper persons to frame your
mode of government. You are now called upon for the last
time to declare whether yourselves, and your children, to the
latest generations, ivill be cursed with slavery,^'' the evil and in
justice of which is acknowledged by every one; or whether you
will elect men who will take measures gradually to extinguish
the evil, without interfering with the existing rights of property,
or injuring the growth of the country. We entreat all those
who have not yet voted to assert the dearest right of freemen.
No question can be so important. Lose the present opportunity
and no other will ever arrive. Your destiny is fixed by the
result of this day's vote," etc. etc. As final evidence of Char
less's position on these two subjects, is the following extract
from his farewell letter of September 13, 1820, to his "Patrons"
on his retirement from the editorship of the Gazette: "It has
been said that the Gazette advocated the restriction of Missouri
by Congress. The base fabricator of this charge is defied to
prove it. Examine the files and they will be found to pursue
one uniform course. Open to all communications, the editor
has never hesitated to state his opposition to the interference
of Congress, but still felt desirous that some limitation should
be put by the People, to the importation of slaves."

" Cf. Mo. Gaz., May 3, 1820.
•' Our Italics.
"• Mo. Gaz., September 13, 1820.

Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 103
In striking contrast to the few editorials which appeared
in the Gazette in 1819 opposing Congressional restriction of
slavery in Missouri, are the great number found in the Enquirer.
On March 31, 1819, the latter paper declared that Congress
would never impose the restriction on Missouri, but if it had
"the people of the United States would have witnessed a spe
cimen of Missouri feeling in the indignant contempt with which
they would have trampled the odious restriction under their feet,
and proceeded to the formation of a Republican Constitution
in the fulness of the peoples power" etc.'" When the various
public meetings protested and the grand juries of Missouri
returned presentments during 1819 against the action of Con
gress, the Enquirer contained many editorials commending the
action of these bodies.*" The Enquirer affirmed that, although
there might be many in St. Charles county who opposed slavery
on principle, "no citizen is known in St. Louis who will support"
the statement that the citizens in the latter place were "divided
in their opinion about the constitutional powers of Congress to
prohibit slavery among" them.*! That paper strongly attacked
the Gazette for its position, and especially the slavery restriction
and anti-slavery articles, written by individuals, which were
printed in the rival sheet.*' On July 21, 1819, the Enquirer
was aroused over hearing that private petitions praying the next
Congress to abolish slavery in Missouri were being circulated

•• St. Louis Enq., March 31, 1819. On April 21, 1819, in an editorial the
Enquirer said it had discovered that "A St. Charles Farmer" who had been writing
slavery restriction articles in the Gazette Uved in St. Louis and thought that his
writings would probably circulate in New England papers as evidence of the
sentiment in Missouri.
<« St. Louis Enq., May 5, 12, 19, July 14, Aug. 18, 1819.
" S«. Louis Enq., June 9, 1819. FoUowing is a copy of the entire editorial:
"Missouri Slave Question. — The Editors of the National IntelUgencer be
lieve that the citizens of this place are divided in their opinion about the con
stitutional powers of Congress to prohibit slavery among us. They were naturally
led into that belief by the face of the public papers. It was a consequence spoken
of by the citizens of this place, as the certain effect of pubUcations made in a paper
in this town. Yet what is the fact? Are we divided in opinion upon that point?
We confidently affirm that no citizen is known in St. Louis who wiU support the
affirmative of the question. As to the pubUcations they are the work of men
newly arrived, who would not be quaUfied, either by residence or the payment
of a tax to vote, in an election, and who with aU their impudence have shame
enough to endeavor to conceal their names, to avoid the public contempt."
" St. Louis Enquirer, June 23, 1819.

104 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
by non-slaveholders and that these petitions were being swollen
by the signatures of "boys and striplings." And the editor of
the Enquirer protested vehemently against an Edwardsville
(Illinois) newspaper stirring up the Missouri slavery question,
and said that this was purely a domestic concern of Missouri,
that actual slavery existed in Illinois, and that the citizens of
the two states should not be thus "set against each other." *'
The attitude of the Enquirer was one of absolute opposition to
Congressional action in restricting slavery in Missouri, and
when the election of delegates took place in 1820, it favored
those who opposed any restriction of slavery in the new State.
The Jackson Herald contained no editorials of special value
on this point, but its attitude was also one of opposition to any
slavery restriction being applied in Missouri whether imposed
by Congress or by the convention. This paper was not a very
strong sheet in its editorials. It tried to maintain a fair and
independent attitude on most questions that arose, especially
on the rivalry between the St. Louis Gazette and the Enquirer
and in the bitter fights over public men and their acts.**
The Missouri Intelligencer bitterly opposed the action of
Congress in attempting to impose a slavery restriction on Mis
souri and said: "This subject appears to have excited a general
burst of indignation from the people of this territory. It is a
question in which Congress have no right to interfere, and to
which we as the people will never submit. The restriction at
tempted to be imposed upon us by the seventy-eight members of
the House of Representatives who voted for it, were those ex
clusively from the eastern states.. They view with a jealous eye
the march of power westward, and are well aware the preponder
ance will soon be against them; therefore they have combined

" "Private Petitions — For a long time we have been informed that private
petitions were carried about in several parts of the territory praying the next
congress to abolish slavery in the Missouri territory. They are said to be circulated
chiefly by persons who own no slaves themselves, and who are very wUUng to ap
pear generous at the expense of others. In promoting their object, and to multiply
signatures, it is said that boys and stripUngs are got to put down their names,
without the addition of their ages; and by such contrivances as these the authentic
expression of public sentiment in this territory by Grand Juries, PubUc Meetings,
Toasts of PubUc companies &c. is to be invalidated and overborne in the next
congress." (Sl. Louis Enq., July 21, 1819.)
" Jackson Herald, February 26, 1820.

Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 105
against us; but let them pause before they proceed further, or
the grave they are preparing for us, may be their own sepul
chre." ** On January 28, 1820, it said: "The most extra
ordinary and unprincipled means are [being used] using by the
eastern people to prevent the citizens of this territory from
enjoying equal privileges with those of other states." It
further said that the proposed compromise of certain members
of Congress to separate by a line running west the slave and free
territory west of the Mississippi river "evinces that humanity
is not the sole object of those who brought forward the re
striction." *' This newspaper not only opposed slavery re
striction in Missouri by Congress but set forth those articles de
fending slavery in Missouri which had appeared in other news
papers. One article in particular taken from a Philadelphia
paper and which the Missouri Intelligencer called "a very able
and ingenius article — on the Missouri Question" strove to
prove the following propositions: (1) that "the holding of
slaves is defencible by the law of nature;" (2) that "slavery is
so by the law of God;" (3) that "slavery is so by the municipal
laws of the great majority of the civilized nations, ancient and
modern;" (4) that "slaves are property;" (5) that "negroes
have no right to object to negro slavery;" (6) that "Congress
has not the right to prohibit slavery in the Missouri territory;
(7) that "under present circumstances it is not expedient to
prohibit it." *' The Missouri Intelligencer from its first issue
in April, 1819, to the spring of 1820, was almost entirely taken
up with the "Missouri Question," and not only contained in
dividual articles and editorials but copies of the speeches re
ported in Congress.*' On April 15, 1820, it printed in full the

"Mo. Intell, (editorial) May 9, 1819. It proceeds as follows: "As well
might they arrest the course of the ocean that washes their barren shores, as to
check our future growth. Emigration wiU continue with a jiant [sic] stride until
the wilderness shall be a wilderness no more; but in its stead will arise fiourishing
towns, cultivated farms, & peace, plenty and happiness smile on the land. Let
those who are raised by the voice of the people to watch over and protect their
rights and liberties, beware how they abuse so sacred a trust, lest they find in every
injured freeman the spirit of a Hampden rise and hurl them from their posts."
"Ibid., (editorial) January 28, 1820.
" Mo. Intell., Feb. 18, 1820. The article was written by one who said he
was "no friend to slavery." (Our Italics.)
" Cf. Mo. Intell, May 7, 1819; March 4, 11, 18, 25, 1820.

106 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Enabling Act passed by Congress, and remarked in its editorial
column: "The names of those who voted in favor of the rights
of Missouri should be handed down to posterity as examples
to future legislators  By their firmness, independence
and patriotism, we have been rescued from degradation, and
the constitution from violation."
The most extensive though perhaps the least valuable
source of information showing the sentiment in Missouri over
the slavery restriction attempted by Congress and incidentally
over slavery itself is the various articles written over noms de
guerre, which appeared in the Missouri newspapers of that
day. These articles are so numerous that only the briefest
summary of them is possible. It is hardly an exaggeration to
state that few issues were run off the press from April 1819 to
April 1820 which did not contain remarks on the "Missouri
Question." These articles covered the entire field of this
question both pro and con, and some took up the discussion of
slavery as an institution in se and also with regard to its appli
cation in Missouri. They naturally divide themselves into
two general groups: those favoring, and those opposing the
attempt of Congress to impose a slavery restriction on Missouri.
The pro-Congress articles appeared in only one newspaper
in Missouri Territory, the Missouri Gazette, and logically were
anti-slavery in tone and argument. If all the noms de guerre
under these articles represented different writers, then the total
number of pro-Congress Missouri authors was only six!*" Some

" The most pronounced and ablest of these was one who signed himself "A
Farmer of St. Charles County." His communications appeared in the Missouri
Gazette on the following dates: April 7. 21. May 5, 19, June 9, 30, 1819. This
author wrote a series of five letters advocating restriction of slavery either by
Congress or by Missouri, and also several repUes to criticisms of his articles. He
declared that the people in his neighborhood were opposed to the further intro
duction of slavery in Missouri, and said that slavery was admitted to be an evil
and a curse even by its advocates. He considered that this curse would be
strengthened if aUowed to spread and said that if Congress did not restrict it in
Missouri then "we wiU try to do it ourselves." As regards the constitutional
right of Congress to do this he continued: "Let none imagine that I beUeve
Congress does not possess the constitutional right to prohibit the introduction
of slavery. I have no doubts on the subject. If slavery is anti-repubUcan,
(and who but a madman will deny that it is?) Congress have the right to refuse
their sanction to any constitution that tolerates it." (Mo. Gaz., May 5, 1819.
3d Letter dated AprU 24, 1819.) In his fourth letter (Mo. Gaz., May 19, 1819,
letter dated May 1, 1819) the "Lawyer junto" of St. Louis is first mentioned.

Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 107
of these writers lay stress on the evils of slavery as an institu
tion and the need of restricting it either by Congressional or
local action; *" others, while recognizing the evils of slavery
and while favoring either emancipation or restriction, empha
sized the desirability and the good policy of waiting patiently
for Congress to act, and defended that body as acting for the
general welfare of the country.*!
Although all pro-Congress articles were logically pro-
restriction and anti-slavery, there were a few anti-Congress
writers who also were opposed to slavery and favored restricting
it. The number of writers that took these latter positions is,
however, almost negligible.*' The circular of John Scott,
Missouri's Territorial Delegate, to the people of Missouri does
not properly belong to this class of writings since while depre
cating slavery it still sitated that a restriction of it would be
This body, composed of the leading lawyers of St. Louis, favored slavery and
wielded an almost invincible strength during this period. It was bitterly op
posed by the Gazette and was frequently referred to as the "lawyer junto."
'• Cf. Note 49. See also in the Missouri Gazette, May 26. 1819, an article
by "An American," which is a strong emancipation piece. A very sarcastic
article written by "A Eepublican Slavedriver" on the excessive use of grand
jury presentments and the beneficent character of slavery appeared in the Gazette,
Sept. 18, 1819. A restrictionist article by "A Eepublican of the Jeffersonian
School" appeared in the Gazette Feb. 23, 1820.
" A series of four articles by "Paciflcus" appeared in the Gazette, May 12,
19, 26 and June 2, 1819, along this line, and, while favoring the Talmadge amend
ment and either the aboUtion or restriction of slavery, these articles urged Mis
souri to patiently wait for Congressional action. A similar article by "Cato" ap
peared in the Gazette, June 16, 1819, which, while favoring emancipation, thought
there was Uttle to be feared of Congress not leaving this in the hands of Missouri.
This latter article is not a real pro-Congress argument although the writer would
hardly have grieved or criticised if Congress had fastened a slavery restriction
on Missouri. " A writer under the nom-de-guerre of "One of the People," whose articles
appeared in the St. Louis Enquirer, April 4, 1819, said; "I do not think slavery
justifiable or beneflcial; but it is for ourselves, and not for Congress to decide
that question;" etc. Another writer under the nom-de-guerre of "A Citizen of
Missouri" said: "I shaU attempt, Mr. Editor, to convince those who read these
remarks, that the proposed resolutions were unconstitutional; that, although
slavery is anti-repubUcan and unbecoming a great nation of freemen, still that it
is aUowed by the Constitution of the United States, and being so, that Congress
have no right to determine about it." (Mo. Gaz., April 28, 1819; cf. Also Mo.
Gaz., March 24, 1819).
The above articles, together with the one written by "A Citizen of Missouri,"
which appeared in the Enquirer July 21, 1819, were the most able on this phase
of the question and were almost in a class to themselves.

108 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
"unfriendly to the slaves themselves to confine them to the
south." *'
The mass of articles written in 1819 and 1820 in Missouri
by those who protested against Congressional restriction of
slavery would fill a volume. These articles, however, either
refrained from a discussion of slavery or advanced arguments for
its unrestricted continuance.** There were some that dealt in
such generalities as the "evil" or "curse of slavery" and then
proceeded to show how the mitigation of this "curse" would be
accomplished by leaving slavery unrestricted in Missouri. These
latter articles were simply counterparts of some of the speeches
delivered in Congress by many of the Representatives from
even the southern states, and indicate nothing except that
slavery in 1819 and 1820 was generally regarded on both sides
of the Mason and Dixon line as an evil. The north wanted
this evil abolished or at least lessened by restricting the new
slave territory; the south desired or pretended to desire to miti
gate it by extending slave territory. For one merely to have

" Mo. Intell, July 16, 1819. FoUowing is an extract from this circular of
Scott's: "I regret as much as any person can do the existence of slavery in the United
States; I think it wrong in itself, nor on principle would I be understood as ad
vocating it; but I trust I shaU always be the advocate of the people's right to
decide on this question, as on all others, for themselves, leaving to their own
wisdom and forecast the adoption of such a Constitution, and the enaction of
such laws as they shall consider best comforts with their prosperity and happiness.
I consider it, not only unfriendly to the slaves themselves to confine them to the
south, but wholly Incompetent for Congress to interfere upon the subject, being
a piece of domestic poUcy which the state of Missouri has a clear right to decide
for herself, as every other state in the Union has done."
" A few of the articles of this nature appeared aver the following noms-de-
guerre in the Missouri Gazette April 7, 1819, "Hampden;" April 14th "Sydney";
April 21, "Hampden," "Gracchus," "A Missourian;" April 28th, "Hampden:"
May 5th, "Hampden;" May 12th, "Sydney;" June 16th, "Hampden;" June
30th, "C." Many others were also printed taking a position of disapproval of
Congressional restriction; these either advocated slavery without any restrictiou
whatever or were silent on that question.
In the St. Louis Enquirer many similar articles appeared of which two were
over the foUowing noms-de-guerre: May 19, 1819, "A St. Louis Mechanic;"
June 16th, "A Citizen of St. Louis," etc. etc.
And, in the Missouri Intelligencer some of the articles appeared over the
foUowing noms-de-guerre: April 30, 1819, "Epaminondas," "A Farmer;" May
7th, "Epaminondas;" May 21st, "Epaminondas;" May 28th, "Atahualpa;"
July 21st, "Epaminondas;" July 30th, "A Spectator;" December 3d, "Cato;"
January 21, 1820, "Cato;" February 1st, "Cato;" February 18th, "A Citizen."

Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 109
stated in 1819 or 1820 that he regarded slavery as an evil, is
of little consequence in itself.
This concludes our detailed examination of those five
original sources of historical information that reveal the senti
ment in Missouri from April 1819 to April 1820 on the question
of the restriction of slavery as attempted by Congress. The
main question under consideration here has been the attitude
of the inhabitants of Missouri Territory over the attempted
restriction of slavery by Congress, but there has also been
brought to light, as incidental to the main issue, the great, if
not more important, question of slavery itself. As has been
stated, the next chapter deals with the slavery proposition,
and it was only to prevent a duplication in the use of source
material that slavery was permitted to creep into this one. It
must be emphasized, however, that during 1819 slavery became
an issue in Missouri and that it was a real if not a greater casus
belli of the inhabitants of this territory in their opposition to
Congressional restriction, the apparent declarations, based on
constitutional grounds, of some prominent men and public
meetings to the contrary notwithstanding.**
The inhabitants of Missouri in 1819 appear to have been
almost a unit in their opposition to any restriction being imposed
by Congress on slavery in their proposed state.*' Only one
minor public gathering and perhaps six nom-de-guerre writers
favored Congressional restriction.*' An examination of the

" The editor of Niles' Register seems to have appreciated this point. On
October 2, 1819, (Niles' Begister XVII, 71.) he said in part: "If the people of Mis
souri are contending for the abstract question, as to their right to admit slavery,
if they please, there is no one, we presume, that wotdd refuse to Usten patiently
to a discussion of the merits of the question; but if they are thus operated upon
from a desire to hold slaves; to extend this cursed blot on our country over the
immense regions west of the Mississippi; and give an almost boundless expanse
to the anti-repubUcan principles which belong to it, and thereby render more
and more difflcult any plan which a more enUghtened posterity may devise to
obliterate this stain on the nation — it is impossible that any humane man can
wish success to their efforts," etc. etc.
" The foregoing statement is based on the source material already examined.
Cf., Perkins and Peck. Annals of the West, 769. second ed., 1850.
" The only public meeting in Missouri in 1819 that adopted resolutions
favoring Congressional restriction was held in St. Ferdinand township, St. Louis
county, on June 5th. Although this meeting was strongly pro-Congress iu senti
ment, it is important to notice that just one month later at a Fourth of July cele
bration held in the same township, aU the toasts drunk were anti-Congress in

110 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
resolutions adopted at public meetings, toasts drunk at public
dinners and celebrations, presentments of Grand Juries, edi
torials, and scores of articles written over noms-de-guerre shows
conclusively that Missouri was overwhelmingly opposed to any
Congressional restriction of slavery.*' The chief arguments
advanced for this position were based : (1) on the United States
Constitution; (2) on the treaty of cession; (3) on the grounds of
policy and interest; and (4) on the dictates of humanity and
the welfare of the slave.
Practically all anti-Congress literature in Missouri set
forth the constitutional reason. This argument was advanced in
two ways, either of which could be stated without taking up a dis
cussion of slavery. First it was urged that the Constitution gave
Congress the power to admit a State into the Union but did not
give that body the power to impose any restriction on a state,
except that its government should be republican in character,
and since in their eyes slavery was not an anti-republican in
stitution, having existed before and after the formation of the
nation, it did not fall within the constitutional restriction.
Secondly, it was declared that Congress was a body of delegated
powers, and since the constitution had not given Congress the
authority to regulate slavery in a state, that power was entirely
within the sphere of state action and was subject to the "in
ternal" or "municipal" control of the State. The argument
based on the treaty of cession was also advanced in practically
all of the Missouri anti-Congress literature of 1819. It de
clared that since in the treaty of cession the United States had
guaranteed to protect the property of the citizens of the Louis
iana Purchase, therefore Congress could not place a restriction on
slavery in Missouri, because slaves had been held as property in

language. Either there was a change in sentiment, or, what is more probable,
the first meeting did not represent the wishes of the inhabitants of even that
township. The smaller Fourth of July gathering at Lucas' Spring in St. Louis was not
strictly pro-Congress in sentiment but rather had confidence in a flnal happy
solution of the Missouri question by the national legislature.
•• It is of interest to notice the following which appeared in Niles' Register,
October 2. 1819 (XVII. 72.): "The grand jiuries and other pubUc bodies of the
territory of Missouri, are loud in denunciations of the proceedings had at the last
session of Congress, concerning the admission of slavery into the proposed State."

Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. Ill
Louisiana prior to and after 1803. The third and fourth set of
arguments involved a discussion of slavery, and we will consider
them in their proper place. The large mass of anti-Congress
literature did not, however, contain reasons which brought for
ward or made prominent the slavery question itself. In fact
many of the anti-Congress articles expressly stated that the
question under consideration in no way involved the discussion
of slavery but was one which rested entirely on a legal basis.
The sentiment in Missouri in 1819 regarding slavery, as
revealed in the various sources of historical information already
examined, is not so clearly defined. As a general proposition it
may be stated that throughout the territory slavery as an in
stitution was deprecated and was regarded as a great evil, even
as a curse. This attitude of the inhabitants of Missouri towards
the institution did not, as one might logically conclude, carry
with it a desire for either emancipation or restriction. It was a
position that was reflected in many of the speeches of even the
southern members of Congress, who at the same time strove
hard to prevent restrictions being placed on slavery. They
were willing, in most cases, to waive the moral issue since the
ark of the Constitution was deemed strong enough to repel any
attack along this line. History and law favored slavery; these
combined with the political and economic strength of that in
stitution were so powerful as to overcome the moral opposition
to it. Although constitutional and economic arguments favor
ing the restriction of slavery were advanced both in and out of
Congress, the stronghold of the restrictionists rested on a moral
foundation. On the other hand, there were some advocates of
slavery who also used the moral argument as well as the con
stitutional and historical, but there were few.
In Missouri in 1819 the six anonymous writers and the
single public meeting that favored the attempted slavery re
striction of Congress, were opposed to slavery. There were
also three or four nom-de-guerre writers who while opposing
Congressional restriction also opposed slavery and favored
State restriction. Including several editorials in the Missouri

112 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Gazette, these few articles are the total amount of anti-slavery
literature that appeared in Missouri Territory in 1819.*"
On the other hand there were a number of articles and reso
lutions that deprecated the existence of slavery, regarded it as
a curse and as an evil, and some even professed to favor a
national emancipation, while at the same time these same
articles opposed any restriction being placed on slavery in Missouri,
whether by Congress or by the state. The arguments used
were based on policy and interest, and on the grounds of hu
manity and the general welfare of the slaves. These arguments
were especially directed against Congressional restriction but
are of equal force as indicating the general anti-restriction posi
tion of the authors advancing them. The general method of
reasoning was: first, that restriction of slavery would tend to
stop southern immigration into Missouri if not put an end to it
altogether; would perhaps produce greater evils than already
existed as restriction approached emancipation; and would be
an unjust interference with established property rights, and a
direct injustice to those who had immigrated with their slaves
to Missouri thinking slavery would be unrestricted here: second,
that restriction of slavery in Missouri if enforced would work
an injustice to the slaves by keeping them in the crowded slave

"Ferdinand Ernst, a German, in his "Travels in Illinois in 1819" came to
St. Louis on July 27th, aud in a letter dated July 30th, EdwardsviUe, lUinois,
wrote, however, as foUows: "This city is the seat of the territorial government
of the Missouri territory. The motion to be advanced to a state and to have its
own constitution met with difflculties in Congress, since Congress wished to im
pose the condition that slavery should be abolished in the state of Missouri. Now
one finds most every day in the newspapers paragraphs concerning this subject,
the majority of which are almost always zealously opposed to the introduction
of slavery in the state of Missouri. Everywhere much is being written now
concerning the possibiUty of getting rid ol slavery as an acknowledged evU in the
entire compass of the free states, so that people in general actuaUy entertain the
hope of seeing even the southern states soon freed from this plague." (Illinois
State Historical Library Publications No. 8, pp. 153-154.) The letter from which
the foregoing extract was taken is dated "EdwardsviUe, July 30, 1820." There
was either a mistake made by the writer as regards the year or a typographical
error in this respect, since it is the only letter dated 1820 and undoubtedly should
have been 1819.
The explanation of Ernst's statement, which is contrary to the actual facts,
may be that he was influenced by the anti-slavery articles in the Edwardsville
(IlUnois) Spectator: certainly his visits in Missouri Territory was too short for
him to have gained any reliable information relating to the subject he commented
on.

Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 113
districts of the south, where their condition was worse and their
hardships greater than farther north, and would not lessen the
number of slaves but only diminish slave territory; and if not
enforced, it would result in as little permanent good as it had
in Illinois. It may be definitely stated that during 1819, i. e., after the
adjournment of Congress in that year, the sentiment in Mis
souri on the question of statehood. Congressional restriction
of slavery, and slavery as an institution, expressed itself in a
united stand of protest against the failure of Congress to admit
Missouri; in a practically united front of opposition, based
mainly on constitutional grounds, to any Congressional restric
tion of slavery in Missouri ; in a more or less general condemnation
of slavery in the abstract, wherever that institution was men
tioned, and a politic course of comparative silence regarding its
restriction by Missouri.
There are several subjects in this connection that could
have been discussed with much interest, but as they rest so
entirely on an academic basis their historical value would be
of small enduring worth. For example, to what extent was
Missouri's opposition in 1819 to Congressional restriction due
to the efforts of her leading men and slave owners? Or, to what
extent did the sentiment of Missourians on Congressional re
striction force her leaders to declare against it? Was Missouri's
condemnation of slavery in the abstract a declaration of policy
in order to propitiate certain northern Congressmen, or was it
an expression based on conviction? Would Missouri have
framed a constitution and set in working a state government,
as Benton and others threatened, if Congress had not passed
an enabling act in 1820? How much did the Spanish land
claim policy of the United States Congress influence the in
habitants of Missouri in their opposition to that body? Data
regarding some of these queries have already been set forth:
new facts will be found in the next chapter.

M S— 8

CHAPTER IV.
POPULAR OPINION IN MISSOURI IN 1820.
ELECTION OF DELEGATES.
The news of the passage of the Missouri Enabling Act
spread quickly over the country; Thomas Hemstead was the
messenger to Missouri. He reached Jackson, Missouri, on his
way to St. Louis on March 21st.! j.jg ^a.s received in St.
Louis with great rejoicing. The citizens of that town expressed
much satisfaction on receipt of the good news. A local chron
icler wrote: "The town was generally and splendidly il
luminated; several transparencies were displayed. Among
others a very handsome one displaying the American Eagle
surmounting the Irish Harp. We were diverted by another,
representing a slave in great spirits, rejoicing at the permission
granted by Congress to bring slaves into so fine a country as
Missouri."' By April 1st the pioneers of the vast Boone's
Lick country on the frontier read with joy this item in the
Missouri Intelligencer: "Pleasing Intelligence — We have the
pleasure of laying before our readers the gratifying intelligence
that the Bill for the admission of Missouri into the Union
UNRESTRICTED, has passed both houses of Congress," etc.
The celebration over the passage of the Enabling Act had
hardly ended in Missouri before the question of electing dele
gates to a constitutional convention became the important
topic of discussion. This question made prominent the same
problem that had convulsed Washington, D. C, for two years —
the problem of the restriction or the non-restriction of slavery
in Missouri. "It appeared that the political storm had not
spent its fury, and had passed from the last to rage with violence
nearer the western horizon." ' There was, however, this
difference between these two political storms: the national
struggle was between forces of equal strength ; the local struggle
1 Houck, Hist. Mo., III. 248.
¦ Mo. Gaz., Apr. 5, 1820.
> Edwards, Great West, 322. (114)

Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 115
was between a small group of able, determined, conscientious
men on the one hand and the overwhelming majority of the
people on the other hand. The local struggle never meant
more than a fight for principles against overwhelming odds.
The press of the State with but one exception, the bench and
bar of Missouri with only several notable exceptions, the wealth
and social position of Missouri's leaders, and the great mass of
Missourians themselves stood together for an unrestricted,
unlimited system of slavery in the new state. Few and none
of prominence, had the temerity to publicly favor abolition.
The division in Missouri was between the few hundreds of voters
who favored a constitutional limitation upon the immigration
of slaves into Missouri after a period of years, and the thousands
who would not permit any tampering with slavery. The one
sought merely slavery restriction: the other slavery free and
unrestricted. The former dreamed of a day when slavery
would die: the latter stood for the perpetuation of slavery.
The fight was on between restrictionists and anti-restriction-
ists. In such a fight the advantage of numbers and wealth was
all on the side of the pro-slavery men. From the time of the
American occupation of the Northwest Territory much of the
immigration to Upper Louisiana had been prompted by a desire
to escape such slavery restrictions as were imposed in the
Northwest Ordinance.* The settlers in Missouri during the
territorial period had come principally from the five slave states
of Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina and
Tennessee. From the spring of 1819 to the spring of 1820 a
constant stream of these southern immigrants with their slaves
and flocks poured into Missouri. Such an influx of population
had never before been seen in this district. All the Missouri
writers of that day were impressed with its magnitude and all
agreed in their accounts regarding the southern character of
the new settlers.* The South was sending forth its most ener-

< Dunn, Slavery Petitions and Papers, in Ind. Hist. Soc. Pub., II. No. 12,
pp. 13ff. 'Mo. Gaz., June 9, Oct. 20, 1819, Jan. 26, 1820; Niles' Register, XVII. 288
(Dec. 25, 1819); Flint, Recollections, p. 201.

116 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
getic and virile families into the rich bottom lands of Missouri.
While Congress was debating slavery in Missouri, the South
was settling it with her sons.
This incoming of southern settlers during the late territorial
period had definitely established slavery as an institution in
Missouri." Slavery had existed in upper Louisiana for decades
and had been an object of solicitude as early as 1805, but it
was not until the Americans from the south brought in their
thousands of negroes that its economic position was securely
founded. In 1810 the slave population of the Territory had been
only 3,011, in 1820 this had increased to 10,222.' As there
were only 14,767 white males over eighteen years of age in
Missouri in 1820, it is evident that there was probably a suffi
cient number of slaves in Missouri to have allowed at least one
to every male property owner.' These figures show the strength
of slavery in Missouri in 1820, the character of the inhabitants
of the State served to buttress this strength. Slavery was an
important factor in the economic life of Missourians at this
time. Much wealth was locked up in slaves and much wealth
was being produced by slaves. Criticism of slavery as a poor
economic system in Missouri is not found in any of the source
material of that day. We are driven to the conclusion that
from an economic point of view alone, slavery in Missouri in
1820 was regarded as indispensible to the life of the State."
The campaign preceding the election of delegates to a
constitutional convention and the election itself pictured
clearly public opinion in Missouri in 1820 on this question of
slavery and on other important issues. For only seven counties

• Trexler, Slavery in Mo., 1804-1865, in Johns Hopkins Univ. Hist. Studies,
XXXII. No. 2, pp. lOSff.
' U. S. Census, Statistical -View and Schedule, 1790-1830, pp. 23, 27.
• Ibid., p. 23. Our data is insufficient for us to determine the extent of slave
holdings in Missouri iu 1820.
•Houck, op. cit., III. 250. The view taken by Mr. Houck is that had no
attempt been made by Congress "to prohibit slavery" in Missouri, "slavery
would have been excluded from the new state." Prof. Trexler, who made an
extended study of this question takes the view that slavery was economically
profitable in Missouri in 1820, that the people of the State favored slavery in
itself, and that Congressional action was only the occasion of the outbreak of
anti-restriction literature that issued from Missouri. Cf., Trexler, op. cil., pp.
lOOfl.

Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. Ill
is pre-election data obtainable on these points, but in these
counties lived nearly two-thirds of the population of Missouri.
They include the counties of Howard, Cooper, Lincoln, Wash
ington, Cape Girardeau, Jefferson and St. Louis.!"
In Howard and Cooper counties public opinion was over
whelmingly pro-slavery and anti-restrictionistic. Of the twenty
candidates who offered themselves for election in Howard
county, not one publicly favored slavery restriction; and of
the five delegates elected, four stated their advocacy of slavery
and of the immigration of slaves — the other delegate, a slave
owner, having put forth no argument for his election except his
name.!! The candidates in Cooper county made no public
declaration of principles that appeared in the press. Two of
the three elected were, however, slave-owners and all were
natives of either Virginia or Kentucky.!'
The Boone's Lick people appeared to have been less con
cerned about slavery restriction than the historians of a century
later. Apparently no restrictionist would have stood a chance
of election there and would probably have fared poorly to have
openly declared himself. These western pioneers were of one
mind on slavery and never feared that Missourians would
interfere with that institution. Other questions were, however,
matters for public discussion. They regarded a correct ap
portionment of delegates and representatives, the central
location of the seat of government, white male suffrage, the
elective principle as applied to the executive and legislative
departments, a sound and independent judiciary, public edu
cation, the absence of property qualifications for voters, con
servative banking laws, and a bill of rights, as being important
questions on which the convention might decide adversely.

'•The combined white and colored population of these counties was 42,669 :
the total population of the State was 66,586. Cf., U. S. Census, Schedule p. 23.
'¦ See files of the Mo. Intell, for April and May, 1820. The four delegates
were Green, Beeves, Burckhartt and Findlay; the one was Eay, a native of
Kentucky and a slave-owner.
" Lillard and Wallace were slave-owners, the one a native of Virginia, the
other of Kentucky. The third delegate. Clark, was a native of Virginia.
The Mo. Intell, May 13, 1820, states that there were eight candidates in
Cooper county: the Hist, of Cooper Co., p. 75, gives a list of twelve candidates
with the vote recorded for each.

118 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
These were the questions that were discussed with much vigor
in the Missouri Intelligencer preceding the election. These
were the vitally important questions regarding which doubt
was entertained of their final issue in the new constitution to
be framed. Slavery was regarded as a practically settled
question on which there was a unanimity of opinion, but an
easternly situated state capitol or a restricted suffrage was an
actual possibility and the Howard and Cooper county people
wanted delegates they could trust when such questions were
before the convention.
In Lincoln county only four candidates appeared. Two
of these favored restricting the period of slavery immigration
fearing lest Missouri deal in slaves as articles of commerce;
the third stated that he favored slavery; and the fourth, Henry —
who was elected — made no statement that appeared in the
newspapers.!' Henry was a large slave-owner and his election
is sufficient proof of the slavery sentiment in Lincoln county.
In Washington county public opinion on slavery is sig
nificantly revealed in the vote that was cast on election day.
The votes cast were four hundred and fifty-three. If each
voter voted for three delegates — the number allotted Wash
ington county — there would have been a total of one thousand
three hundred and fifty-nine delegate votes. At Mine a Burton
there were one thousand two hundred and eight delegate votes
cast, and of these only sixty-one were for restrictionists.!*
Further, all three delegates elected were slave-owners.
In Cape Girardeau county thirteen candidates were before
the voters. Only one, George H. Scripps, was an avowed
restrictionist.!* The others who stated their position on this
question were all strong pro-slavery men and non-restriction-
ists.!' The five delegates elected were anti-restrictionists,
pro-slavery men and had all publicly stated their position.
The lowest vote received by any of these five was more than
twice as high as that cast for Scripps, the restrictionist; and

•• Mo. Gaz., Apr. 12, 19, 26, 1820.
"St. L. Enq., May 10, 1820; Scharf, I. 563.
'• Jackson (Mo.) Herald, Apr. 22, 1820.
" Ibid., April 8, 15, 22, 29, 1820.

Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 119
four candidates not elected also received higher votes than
Scripps.!' This shows the preponderating anti-restriction public
opinion in Cape Girardeau county. The Rev. Timothy Flint,
who resided in Jackson, Missouri, from December, 1819, to
the spring of 1820, said in this connection: "The slave ques
tion was discussed with a grdat deal of asperity, and no person
from the northern states, unless his sentiments were unequiv
ocally expressed, had any hopes of being elected to the con
vention, that formed the constitution." !' Four of the five
delegates elected were natives of slave states; the other, a native
of Ireland. In Jefferson county the slavery question was the im
portant one. A small but determined minority organized to
elect a restrictionist delegate. A meeting of restrictionists was
held at the house of John Geiger in Herculaneum on April
22nd and David Bryant presided and Benjamin Lundy was
appointed secretary.!" This meeting resolved that slavery was
an evil and should be limited in Missouri; that it was inex
pedient at that time to urge abolition; that a freehold suffrage
qualification was anti-republican; and that ballot voting was
a security against "the vapouring bullies of aristocracy from
extorting from the timid and the weak, a soul-degrading ac
quiescence in their tyranical proscriptions." The meeting also
passed a resolution recommending Abner Vansant as a can
didate to the convention, and another naming a committee of
five to draft an address to the electors. The committee re
ported an address, which had probably been previously pre
pared, which was ordered printed on handbills and distributed
among the voters, and which was also ordered printed in the
Missouri Gazette.
The address was a remarkably clear and concise argument
in favor of slavery restriction in Missouri. Contrasts were

"Jackson (Mo.) Herald, May 6, 13, 1820. Buckner received the smaUest
vote of the five delegates elected. He received two hundred and forty-one
votes; Scripps, one hundred and twelve votes; BoUinger, Ellis, Eanney and
Lewis, aU pro-slavery men, received more votes than Scripps, altho they were
not elected delegates.
"Flint's Recollections, p. 214. (Kirkpatrick).
' ' All information relating to Jefferson county was obtained from the Mo.
Gaz., April 26, 1820.

120 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
drawn between free and slave states, such noted statesmen as
Clay and Jefferson were quoted with force, and an appeal was
made to the inherent ideas of justice in the breasts of Americans.
A saner, more temperate, and more forceful anti-slavery docu
ment is not met with in the early history of Missouri. Its
author performed well his duty and it is to be regretted that
his name will probably never be known.
Acting in accordance with the resolutions adopted at this
meeting Abner Vansant made public statement of his sentiments
on the questions considered and agreed to the fundamental
acts of the restrictionist meeting. Despite the clear cut issues
presented the voters in Jefferson county and despite, further,
the appearance of two anti-restrictionist candidates, Samuel
Hammond and John W. Honey, the restrictionists were defeated.
Hammond, a wealthy land-owner and slave-holder, was elected
to represent Jefferson county.
It was in St. Louis county, the second in both slave and
free population in the Territory, that the most bitter and de
termined fight was waged between restrictionists and anti-
restrictionists.'" Not only were the restrictionists many times
stronger in numbers in St. Louis county than in the other dis
tricts, but they were better organized, more ably led, and were
alone in having the warm support of a local Missouri news
paper, the Missouri Gazette. ^^ Adding bitterness to the cam
paign in St. Louis county were the intense personal enmity
of the two local editors, Thomas H. Benton of the Enquirer
and Joseph Charless of the Gazette, the rivalry of such opposing
lawyers and politicians as Rufus Pettibone and Rufus Easton
on the one hand and David Barton and Edward Bates on the
other, and the blood feud between Thomas H. Benton, the
duellist, and his victim's father, John B. C. Lucas. The
struggle here was not only a fight over personalities but also

'•Howard county, the most populous, had 11,319 whites, 2,089 slaves, and
18 free colored in 1820; St. Louis, 8,014 white, 1,810 slaves, and 196 free colored,
besides 29 others free. U. S. Census, 1830, Schedule, p. 23.^
"The Mo. Intell., Franklin, Howard county; the Missouri Herald, Jackson
Cape Girardeau county, and the St. Louis Enq., were all pro-slavery and anti-
restriction papers. The Mo. Gaz. alone championed restriction principles. The
first issues of the Missourian, St. Charles, that were examined by us were dated
after the election had taken place.

J(«l';i'll CHARLIvSS.
From Houck's Uul. Mu III. 65,

TOOM \S H BE.\'TON.
I IL.uck's Uisi. Mo. III. 268,

I'lDW ARD Ji.\TI';S.
I'lom Houck's //;..( .1/u, III. IS.

\i,I':.\.\.ndI';r McNair.
I'm. HI ll.iuck's ///j/. Mu ni 251.

PIERRE CHDUrE.'^U, JR.
I-'rom Houck's Hist. Mo. III. 254.

WILLLVM G. PETTUS.
From Houck's Hist. Mo III. 250.

SO.ME PROMINENT ST. LOUIS,\NS IN 1820.

72834—120

Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 121
over principles. Barton, Benton and some of their friends
were not only attacked for being bachelors, for being debauched,
and for forming a lawyer clique, but were also accused of being
anti-restrictionists, and of being advocates of freehold suffrage
and viva voce voting; Lucas was opposed not only because of
his record as one of the board of commissioners of the United
States for adjusting Spanish land claims and because of his
personal enemies, but also because he was a restrictionist.
Although this was not the first political campaign waged in
St. Louis county or in the Territory, it was one of the most
determined and bitter prior to the State election in August,
1820. The secret and the open caucus were in notice and the
popular meeting of those days was also present. The issues
were clearly drawn and the candidates definitely placed: the
stake was the election of eight delegates, three more than any
other Missouri county was apportioned, to Missouri's first
constitutional convention. Such a stake was as fully appre
ciated at that time as it would be today. These eight delegates
acting together would control with their own votes alone
twenty per cent of the entire convention and would form
thirty-eight and one-half per cent or nearly two-fifths of a
majority. Such was the importance of the St. Louis county
campaign and election.
The anti-restrictionist candidates were divided into one
large group and two small ones. All three groups publicly
held this in common that they opposed placing a constitutional
restriction on the importation of slaves into Missouri. United
in being anti-restrictionists they differed however on other
points. The most important group of restrictionists was such
by virtue of numbers, ability, organization and power. It
originally consisted of thirteen candidates although only twelve
publicly declared themselves." These thirteen were David
Barton, Edward Bates, Thomas H. Benton, Pierre Chouteau,
Jr., G. W. Ferguson, Henry S. Geyer, Wilson P. Hunt, M. P.
Leduc, Mathias McGirk, Alexander McNair, Bernard Pratte,
William Rector, and John C. Sullivan." Benton's name was

" Mo. Gaz., April 19, 1820, editorial.
" Mo. Gaz., AprU 12, 19, 26, May 3, 10, 1820.

122 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
never listed with the other candidates in the newspapers but
there were several petitions in circulation requesting his can
didacy. It does not appear, however, that these petitions,
were popular.'* Since there were only eight delegates to elect,
the thirteen anti-restrictionists of this group decided to select
eight of their number as the running candidates and the other
five were to resign, thus increasing the chances of the ticket.
Each of the thirteen candidates appointed a deputy to repre
sent him and these thirteen deputies held a private meeting
in St. Louis on April 10th. At this meeting ballots were cast
and the following seven candidates were decided upon: David
Barton, Edward Bates, Wilson P. Hunt, Alexander McNair,
Bernard Pratte, William Rector and John C. Sullivan. There
was a tie between Chouteau and Benton, and, as the other four
candidates were apparently dropped, the contest was between
these two. The decision was finally given in favor of Chou
teau. The other candidates publicly resigned and the lawyer
slate of the foregoing eight candidates was placed before the
people.'* Besides this caucus meeting there was a public
meeting of the anti-restrictionists at Florissant. Some at this
meeting opposed the lawyers' ticket but it appears that the
eight candidates were finally endorsed." This ticket was the
regular anti-restriction slate, it had organization and agree
ment back of it, and it was supported by the anti-restriction
organ, the Enquirer. Further, it represented the radical pro-
slavery sentiment of the county and stood before the voters
principally on that issue. Its campaign slogan might well
have been — Slavery Unrestricted for Missouri."

"Mo. Gaz., April 26, 1820.
" Mo. Gaz., April 19, 26, 1820. The charge was made by the opposition
that Chouteau could not speak English and that only several days before the
meeting of the caucus had given in his testimony in French by means of an in
terpreter before the district court. Mo. Gaz., April 26, 1820, "An Elector."
Cf., Mo. Gaz., May 10, 1820, editorial.
" Mo. Gaz., April 26, 1820, "I."
" Chouteau declared himself only on the question of slavery (Mo. Gaz.,
AprU 19, 1820) ; Hunt fooUshly went into detaUs regarding his anti-restriction
principles and went so far as to practically defeat his major premise, to this may
easily be attributed his defeat at the poUs (iMd., April 19, 1820); McNair was
for unrestricted slavery and also for free, white male suffrage based on age, resi
dence and a slight tax qualification (ibid., April 26, 1820); Eector's principles

Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 123
The second group of anti-restrictionists were composed of
three candidates, John S. Ball, Risdon H. Price, and Thomas
F. Riddick. These men were also for unrestricted slavery in
Missouri, but they were running independently of the caucus
slate. They further favored a free white male suffrage that
was limited only by an age, residence and slight tax qualification."
Riddick also favored ballot voting. Of these men the most
prominent was Riddick and his long and honorable public
record in St. Louis was a strong recommendation for him.
The third class of anti-restrictionists embraced only one
candidate, Rufus Easton. His address for election was directed
to the independent voters. He favored leaving the question
open in the hands of the legislature in regard to the migration
of slaves. He opposed disturbing the convention, state and
nation, by placing a binding prohibition in the constitution
which would prevent the legislature from ever regulating or
stopping the importation of slaves in the State. He said:
"that subject should be left free for the state to legislate upon
from time to time, unshackled by any constitutional provision."
Easton was an anti-restrictionist only in this sense, that he
opposed a slavery restriction clause in the constitution. In
regard to suffrage he favored a tax qualification.'" Such a
stand on the slavery question was undoubtedly unsatisfactory
to both restrictionists and anti-restrictionists. Easton probably
resigned before the election as his name is not listed in the
newspaper election returns.
The restrictionists had at least eight and perhaps eleven
candidates at the beginning of the campaign.'" Six of these
resigned on April 19th, leaving the following five restriction
candidates in the field: John Bobb, Caleb Bowles, John B. C.

were the same as McNair's except that he also favored baUot voting (ibid., April
19, 1820); Sullivan's position was the same as McNair's (iMd., April 26, 1820).
The individual announcements of the other candidates were not found.
" Mo. Gaz., April 26, 1820. No declaration of principles by Ball could be
found. '• Mo. Gaz., April 12, 1820.
" It could not be ascertained regarding the platform of Clement B. Penrose,
James Mackay and Alexander Stuart. The latter resigned on April 19th and
probably the other two did this before the election. (Mo. Gaz., April 12, 19,
1820.)

124 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
Lucas, Rufus Pettibone, and Robert Simpson.'! 'pj^jg elimina
tion process was probably the result of an agreement similar
to the proceedings of the anti-restrictionists.
The head of the restrictionist ticket was Judge John B. C.
Lucas, a prominent and honored lawyer and public official for
years in the Territory. His principles were in general those of
the other four candidates, except that he took perhaps a more
conservative attitude towards slavery. Lucas stated his views
in a lengthy article announcing his candidacy." He dis
claimed being a part of any ticket or clique, and stated that
the opinions he had would be subject to modification in the
convention if more information was there given. He assured
the voters of his stand on slavery in the following language:
"Were it not for the false statements that have been set afloat
concerning my views, I should think it unnecessary to assure
the public that nothing was or is more foreign to my mind,
than to attempt to shake in the convention, diminish or impair
any existing right, even the right to hold slaves or their off
spring, to the most remote generations." He stated, however,
that since the larger portion of Missourians were not slave
owners he was opposed to the further unrestricted importation
of slaves, and favored every effort to prevent the increase or
extension of slavery which effort was consistent with the vested
rights of the people of Missouri. He said further: "I there
fore am of opinion that it would be beneficial to the majority
of the present population, and still more so to the future, genera
tions, to prohibit by this constitution the importation or the
immigration of slaves from any state or territory into the state
of Missouri from and after  time." While not
critical regarding the importation of domestic slaves with their
household masters, Lucas bitterly opposed plantation slave
gangs coming into the State. He opposed the latter in his love
for the free white laborer, small land owner, and tenant. Be
sides taking a definite stand on slavery Lucas favored ballot

" The other three to resign were Abner Beck, John Brown, and William
Long. These aU received votes, however, at the election. (Mo. Gaz., April 19,
26, May 10, 1820.)
" Mo. Gaz., AprU 12, 1820. This article also appeared in French in this
paper on April 26.

Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 125
voting as "the only means to allay the political paroxysm that
seldom fails to happen at elections, and gives the weak, the
timid, and the dependent, a fair opportunity to give a con
scientious and independent vote, without exposing themselves
to the violence of political bullies, or the vengeance of over
bearing, wealthy and ambitious men." He also advocated a
tax qualification for voters and opposed a freehold qualification.
Notwithstanding these mild restrictionist views, Lucas was
defeated. In a letter written by him on October 27, 1820, he
stated that he did not succeed because he had favored a limit
of five years or some short period from the adoption of the
constitution as the limit for the importation of slaves. There
upon, he added, the pro-slavery men called him an emancipator
"and this is the worst name that can be given in the State of
Missouri."" Lucas in a letter written eighteen months later
stated that as he was known to have opposed the Spanish
land claims, these claimants opposed him and reported that he
opposed slavery in order to defeat him.'* The evidence is con
clusive that Lucas' restrictionist views defeated him at the polls,
regardless of the causes that prompted his enemies to dwell
upon these anti-slavery views.
The second restrictionist candidate in importance was
Rufus Pettibone. He favored restricting slavery in Missouri,
"but still for the sake of encouraging emigration" opposed
for a number of years prohibiting "persons wishing to emigrate
here, and settle among us, from bringing their slaves with them."'*
Pettibone opposed a freehold and favored a tax qualification
only for voters and advocated ballot voting. A similar posi
tion was taken by Robert Simpson. While condemning slavery
as a moral and political evil, Simpson opposed the emancipa
tion of slaves and of their increase since slaves were property.
He thought, however, that Missouri should prevent slaves
being brought into Missouri as into a market and advocated

" "Lucas to Eobert Moore (J. B. C. Lucas, Jr., comp. letters of Hon. J. B.
C. Lucas, from 1815 to 1836, pp. 28f." (Citation taken from Trexler, p. 104.)
" "Lucas to William Lowndes, Nov. 26, 1821 (ibid., p. 158); Lucas to Eufus
King, Nov. 16, 1821 (ibid., p. 148)." (Trexler, p. 104.)
Mo. Gaz., May 17, 1820.
" Mo. Gaz., AprU 12, 1820. Letter dated April 10, 1820.

126 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
some restriction on slave immigration. Although a restriction
ist, Simpson thought it expedient to "allow a reasonable time
for those owing slaves and who may become interested in our
soil, to emigrate to the state." "But," he added, "this
question of slavery seems to have absorbed every other con
sideration." Simpson regarded the suffrage a greater one and
was strongly opposed to a restricted or freehold qualification."
Caleb Bowles, another restrictionist, stated that if elected he
would "use every endeavour to stop the further introduction
of slaves at as early period as possible." He was explicit,
however, in his opposition "to interfere with the slaves already
in the territory." "
In short the position taken by the restrictionist candidates
was perfectly clear. While in some instances opposed to
slavery, all opposed tampering with or emancipating the slaves
already in the territory or their increase. Existing property
rights were always to be respected. While favoring restriction
on the immigration of slaves into the territory, only one went
so far as to advocate such restriction "at as early a period as
possible."" The voters were given to understand that the
restrictionists were not emancipators but only restrictionists.
In order to arouse public opinion and to organize, about
one hundred restrictionists held a meeting in St. Louis on April
10th.'" Joseph Charless was chairman and the resolutions
adopted stated that the meeting was "decidedly opposed to
any interference with the slaves" then in the territory,*" that
the further introduction of slaves should be stopped as early
as possible," and that the St. Louis county delegates should
try to effect this result in the convention; that the meeting
opposed a freehold suffrage qualification and viva voce voting;
"Mo. Gaz., AprU 5, 19, 1820.
" Mo. Gaz., AprU 5, 1820.
" Caleb Bowles. Mo. Gaz., April 5, 1820.
"Mo. Gaz., April 12, 1820.
"Joseph Charless in answer to "A Farmer" stated publicly as follows on
this point: "I am apprised of the sentiments of all those candidates who are
favorable to the future restriction of slavery, and have conversed with most of
them on the subject, and I can assure them [the friends of "A Farmer"], that not
one of them [the restrictionists] holds the opinion he deprlcates. They are de
cidedly opposed to any interference with the slaves in the territory." (Mo.
Gaz., AprU 12, 1820.)

Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 127
that candidates declare their positions on slavery, suffrage and
voting principles; and that the two St. Louis papers insert the
resolutions. There were some present at this meeting who
belonged to the anti side and these parties attempted to divert
if not disperse the gathering. Their attempts failed but the
Enquirer very unjustly branded all restrictionists thereafter
as "disorganizers, or emissaries of King and Clinton, or the
busy spirits of anarchy." *!
From the data at hand it does not seem that a hearty
reception was accorded the restrictionists. Even the restric
tionists themselves became less assertive and less definite in
regard to restriction as the days of election approached. Even
the real leader of the restrictionists, Joseph Charless, hedged
to the extent of emphasizing that Lucas stood for existing
slavery rights and that as far as Lucas entertained restrictionist
views these "private sentiments" would "yield to the public
will, whenever it will be clearly and distinctly made known." *'
The pro-slavery party, on the other hand, became more
confident and dogmatic in regard to their positiion on slavery
as the final test drew near. They stood firm on the single issue
of slavery-restriction or unlimited immigration of slaves, and
they went before the voters with seemingly little fear of defeat.
They were glad to drop all other issues such as suffrage and
voting, and stumped the county only against slavery restriction.
Accusations and counter-accusations were in evidence but the
pro-slavery men had the advantage.*' The latter held the
trump card, knew it, and would play no other. Side issues —
as important intrinsically as slavery — were brushed aside by
them and the flag of unlimited, unrestricted slavery was held
up before the voters. They knew the power they wielded and

'¦ April 19, 1820, by "A Member of the meeting."
" Mo. Gaz., April 19, 1820, editorial.
" The Enquirer accused the Methodist preachers of preaching and laboring
for slavery restriction. Some were even accused by the pro-slavery men of preach
ing rebellion to the slaves. The latter charge was never substantiated, and the
former was denied by the Eev. M. Peck. (Mo. Gaz., May 10, 1820, "Fair Play;
ibid.. May 24, 1820, "A. McAllister.") The Enquirer spoke of the restrictionists
as the "Yankees," a term of more wide-spread reproach in Missouri in 1820 than
in the sixties. (Mo. Gaz., May 3, 1820.) The pro-slavery candidates in St. Louis
county were branded as debauched, depraved bachelors who formed a lawyer
junto. (Mo. Gaz., AprU, May, 1820.)

128 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
did nothing that would have impaired that power. They
gathered to themselves popular opinion because they perceived
and interpreted one thing that the people wanted. The people
also wanted an unrestricted suffrage, except with age and resi
dence qualifications, and an unrestricted system of voting, the
ballot system, but they either desired or were led to desire an
unrestricted slavery more than either or both of these.** The
issue of the day had become solely a restricted or an unre
stricted slavery system for Missouri.
The election was held on the first Monday and the two
days following in May, which fell on the first, second and third
of that month. Contrary to popular opinion and contrary
even to former recorded Missouri history, this election was not
held viva voce. The voting was by ballot.**
The St. Louis county polls were the center of interest of
the Territory. There the restrictionists were strongest. There
the anti-slavery men stood a better chance of electing a delegate
than in any other county. On May 3rd, the last day of the
election, the Missouri Gazette addressed the voters in an im
passioned editorial, that even today has a modern, twentieth
century ring. It said in part:
"Fellow Citizens, Today is the last opportunity that is left you to give your
voice in forming a State Constitution. You are now called upon for the last
time to say whether aristocracy and tyranny shall prevail — whether a few nabobs
selected by a secret caucus, shall be forced upou you , or whether you
will exercise the proper persons to frame your mode of government. You are
now called upou for the last time to declare whether yourselves, and your chUdren,
to the latest generation, will be cursed with slavery, . . ; or whether you
will elect men who will take measures gradually to extinguish the evil, without
interfering with the existing rights of property. . . Your destiny is fixed by
the result of this day's vote."

" Mo. Gaz., AprU 12, 19, 26, 1820, "Anthony Benezet;" ibid., AprU 19, 1820,
"A Mechanic;" ibid., April 26, 1820, "Au Elector."
" BiUon, Annals, 1804-1821, p. 106, states that the election was held viva
voce. All territorial elections were held by ballot. This continued down to Dec.
9, 1822, when the viva voce system was adopted but ballot voting was even by that
act stUl lawful. BaUot voting came back thirteen years later in 1835. In those
days there was little material diflerence between the two systems: neither was
secret, the judge or clerk of the election reading aloud the ticket cast or announcing
the oral vote cast. Otis, Election Laws of Mo., pp. Ilf; Mo. Ter. Laws, I. 185,
Act of June 18, 1808; Ibid., pp. 297f., act of Jan. 4, 1814; ibid., pp. 512f., act of
Jan. 29, 1817; ibid., (Laws of the State) p. 961, act of Dec. 9, 1822.

Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 129
The result of the election in St. Louis county was, however,
most gratifying to the pro-slavery party. All eight delegates
elected were anti-restrictionists and all but one had been slated
by the caucus. The total number of votes cast for all the
restrictionist candidates was 2,026, while the total for the
anti-restrictionists was 7,265 — a ratio of nearly four to one
for the pro-slavery party. The highest vote cast for a restric
tionist was 400, which was given to J. B. C. Lucas; the lowest
was 73, to William Long: the highest vote cast for an anti-
restrictionist was 892, which was given to David Barton; the
lowest was 144, to Ridson H. Price. The pro-slavery delegate
who received the smallest number of votes was Thos. F. Riddick.
His vote was, however, 562, or 162 votes more than Lucas re
ceived.*' By no possibility could the restrictionists have elected
a delegate. They were numerically in the minority. There
were not more than four hundred restrictionist voters in the
entire county and at least two hundred and sixty of these were
located in the St. Louis township. Although only fifty-seven
per cent of the total vote was cast in St. Louis township, the
restrictionists obtained sixty-eight per cent of their total there.
The stronghold of the restrictionists was the town, although
even there the pro-slavery party had at least four hundred and
seventy-seven voters as against the two hundred and sixty
restrictionists. Moreover, nine of the pro-slavery candidates
received more votes in St. Louis township than any restric
tionist candidate. In each of the other two townships in the
county the pro-slavery party was proportionately stronger
than even in St. Louis.*' In St. Louis township the pro-slavery
candidates received three and one-half times as many votes as
the restrictionists, in the other two townships the former re
ceived four times as many. However, in St. Louis township

<• Mo. Gaz., May 10. 1820. The pro-slavery votes were cast as follows:
Barton, 892; Bates, 881; Chouteau, 586; McNair, 881; Pratte, 874; Eector, 889;
Eiddick, 562; SuUivan, 861; BaU, 303; Hunt, 392; Price, 144. The first eight
were elected, Eiddick the independent pro-slavery candidate won over Hunt
the slated pro-slavery man. The restrictionist votes were cast as follows : Lucas,
400; Simpson, 390; Pettibone, 329; Bowles, 342; Bobb, 296; Beck, 111; Brown,
85; Long, 73. The last three had declined before the election.
" Votes given by townships for each candidate found in Mo. Gaz., May 10,
1820.
M S— 9

130 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
the pro-slavery voters outnumbered the restrictionist voters,
only about two to one; in the two other townships, three to one.
The organization of both parties was strongest in St. Louis
township. Here the pro-slavery caucus slate of eight, went
through with only a defection of one hundred votes in the case
of Chouteau and about one hundred and fifty votes in the case
of Hunt. Here the restrictionist ticket of five candidates was
supported with slight scratching. In the other two townships,
however, more independent voting obtained. Hunt, a slated
pro-slavery candidate, polled only 74 votes in these, while
Riddick, the independent pro-slavery candidate, polled 365
votes, and Ball, another independent pro-slavery candidate,
received 179 votes. In one outside township, Chouteau was
so unpopular that he polled only 7 votes, while his ticket se
cured an average of about 150 votes. To this independent
voting Riddick owed his election.
The result of the election throughout the Territory was
even more decidedly pro-slavery than in St. Louis county.
The Missouri Intelligencer on June 10th, said editorially: "It
is now certain that the whole Missouri delegation to the Con
vention are in favor of Missouri being a slave state uncon
ditionally." The St. Louis Enquirer on May 10th, said edi
torially: "We undertake to say that there is not a single con
fessed restrictionist elected throughout the Territory, nor a
disguised one that will venture to confess himself in the con
vention." The Jackson Herald on May 27th gave a list of the
delegates elected in most of the counties and commented: "All
in favor of the continuance of slavery in Missouri." *' Even
the independent editor of the Missouri Gazette wrote on May
10th the following bitter confession: "The election for mem
bers of the convention is past, and has resulted in the choice
of candidates, whose sentiments on several points we honestly
avow, we did not approve  If a majority of the people
are willing and desirous that slavery shall exist eternally in
Missouri; that the right of suffrage shall be confined to those

•' The Herald on May 13th also copied in the Enquirer's comment of May
10th.

Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 131
who own a freehold, or a quantity of negroes, that all voting
shall be viva voce, we are contented."*"
The results of the election in the other counties showed
an even stronger pro-slavery sentiment than existed in St.
Louis county. No record is found of there having been any
restrictionist candidates before the people except in St. Louis,
Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln and Cape Girardeau counties.
In St. Louis county there were not over four hundred restric
tionists ; in Jefferson county, probably not a hundred ; in Washing
ton, about seventy; in Lincoln not over a hundred; and in Cape
Girardeau, about one hundred and fifty. In the other counties
there were either no restrictionists or they were negligible,
since no candidate was put forth. Thus allowing the liberal
number of eight hundred and twenty-five restrictionists in the
five foregoing counties, it is quite probable that there were not
over a thousand restrictionist voters in the Territory. As the
ratio of votes cast to the white population ranged between one
to five to one to eight, and as the total white population of the
territory was approximately 56,000, the number of voters
voting was between seven and eleven thousand. In short the
restrictionists were not only in the minority but were hope
lessly in that class, being outnumbered at least seven to one
and perhaps nine or ten to one.*"

<• See also Mo. Gaz., May 17. 31, 1820.
" Lucas, who received the largest number of votes given a restrictionist,
poUed only 400 votes. In Jefferson county 265 votes were cast. This represented
265 voters, since Jefferson county elected only one delegate. There were three
candidates in the field, Hammond, Henry — both pro-slavery men — and Vausant,
restrictionist. Hammond and Henry probably received at least 165 votes.
Hammond was elected. (Scharf, Hist. St. Louis, I, 563, gives return of votes
for ten counties. Supposed to have been copied from the returns made to the
Executive offlce.) In Washington county all three pro-slavery candidates were
elected. AU but 150 votes were cast at Mine a Burton. At this place, 1,147
were pro-slavery votes and only 61 were restrictionist votes. (St. Louis Enq.,
May 10, 1820.) In Lincoln county, one delegate to elect, 248 votes were cast.
(Scharf. op. cit.) Four candidates were in the field — two restrictionists and two
pro-slavery men. A pro-slavery candidate, Malcolm Henry, was elected. The
pro-slavery sentiment in Lincoln county was probably even stronger than in
Jefferson county, since it had a larger slave population but a smaller white popula
tion. In Cape Girardeau county there were 837 votes cast. (Scharf, op. cit.)
The single restrictionist candidate, Scripps, received only 147 votes. (Jackson
Herald, May 6. 13, 1820.)
The ratio of votes cast to the total white population varied in different
counties. In Washington county it was one to five, the number of votes being

132 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Several writers on this subject of the election of delegates
have stated that anti-Congress public opinion in Missouri
had so influenced the people that the voters elected only strong
pro-slavery delegates. In short that opposition to slavery
restriction by Congressmen had reacted and become opposition
to slavery restriction by Missourians; that anti-slavery men
were so blinded in their hatred of anti-slavery legislation by
Congress that they voted to perpetuate slavery among them
selves; and that pro-slavery delegates were elected because of
resentment against attempted anti-slavery legislation by Con
gress and not because of a pro-slavery sentiment.*! Such
statements and conclusions have a plausibility that carries
with it an almost convincing proof. All agree that Missourians
were deeply stirred in anger against attempted Congressional
slavery legislation in 1819. There is no room to doubt that
there were few in Missouri in that year who dared openly to
approve the efforts made by the majority of the National House
of Representatives to restrict slavery here. The evidence is
conclusive on this point. The next step is that so bitter was
the resentment of Missourians in 1819 against anti-slavery
legislation by Congress that even anti-slavery men voted for
pro-slavery delegates in 1820 to frame pro-slavery laws in a
Missouri constitutional convention. No evidence is given
to support this, it is merely a statement based on conviction.
On the other hand would it not be just as plausible to say that
a strong resentment against anti-slavery legislation of Congress
existed in Missouri in 1819 not only because Missourians ob
jected to any kind of Congressional interference but because
they were strongly pro-slavery in sentiment?
The facts, however, are these in regard to the election of
pro-slavery delegates in 1820. Missourians elected pro-slavery
delegates by overwhelming majorities not because they were
453 and the white population. 2,344. In Howard county the ratio was about
one to seven, the number of votes being 1,735, the white population 11,319. In
Cooper county the ratio was nearly one to eight, the number of votes being 797,
the white population 6,307. (Scharf, op. cit.; U. S. Census, 1830, Schedule p.
23.) For list of delegates elected see Appendix IV.
" Carr, Mo., pp. 150f; Hodder, Side Lights on Mo. Comp., in Am. Hist.
Ass'n. R., 1909, p. 155.

Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 133
better men or anti-Congress men, but because they were anti-
restrictionists. The voters and the candidates did not write
anti-Congress articles for the April and May Missouri news
papers of 1820, but wrote addresses to the people on pro-slavery
and anti-slavery premises, on anti-restriction and restriction
bases, on suffrage and on voting. These were the issues of the
day, and the big issue over all was slavery. No attempt was
made even by the pro-slavery candidates to convert people by
anti-Congress arguments, and if such an attempt had been
made its superficial character would probably have incensed
rather than enthused Missourians. Such argument would
have been a poor battle cry in 1820 in Missouri, and there was
no hesitancy in those days to seize campaign material wherever
it could be found. Charless tried to defeat the pro-slavery
lawyers by calling them bachelors and immoral men, and un
democratic even to the exercise of the suffrage. Benton tried
to cast coals on the heads of the restrictionists by accusing them
of inciting humble ministers of the gospel to preach the doctrine
of emancipation in the negroe's hut : but neither dug up the dead
past of Congress legislation.*' Both sides fought openly and
squarely on the slavery platform, and to the voters slavery
was the big question to be forever settled.
The voters' interest in slavery was purely a matter of self-
interest. The number of slaves in Missouri in 1820 equalled
its number of voters. The 14,667 free white males over eight
een years toiled with or were toiled for by 10,222 human chattels.
These ten thousand represented several million dollars that were
doubly productive. No county had less than two hundred of
these, and one county had twenty-one hundred. Then, there
was the land-speculator, big and small. To get his profits or
unearned increment, settlements were necessary. The quicker
and the larger was immigration to the new State, the sooner
he became wealthy. But immigration had set in from the south,
the land of slavery. To restrict the slave immigration would
be to limit white immigration. To argue that the stopping

"Mo. Gaz., April 19, 1820; St. Louis Enq., June 14, 1820, quotation from
Niles' Register, May 13, 1820, which had been taken for an article in the Mo.
Gaz.

134 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
of slave immigration from the south meant the beginning of
white immigration from the north, was offering the speculator
a chance in exchange for a certainty. Nor was the land spec
ulator, big farmer and small, alone a convert to these ideas.
The business man, the surveyor, the politician, believed that
his business was bound up with more southern settlers and
more slaves. Reasons of justice and humanity were on the
side of the restrictionists, and perhaps the farsighted logic of
the future was theirs, but the reasons of dollars and self-interest
and the keen cut logic of the present fought on the side of the
pro-slavery party. In such a struggle the justice and wisdom
possessed by a few hundred souls were no strong competitors
to the self-interest and prejudice of the thousands of voters.

CHAPTER V.
FATHERS OF THE STATE.
PERSONNEL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1820.
It has always seemed strange to us that while much of the
pioneer and military history of Missouri is familiarly known
to all the United States, the lives of those men that framed
and set in working the State's first constitution have excited
so little interest even at home. Every schoolboy west of the
Mississippi River and many east of it know something of that
Kentucky and Missouri pioneer whose name has been popularly
associated with the Boone's Lick Road, or of that famous Mis
sourian who has been so appropriately called the "Xenophon
of the Mexican War." Yet the work of either Daniel Boone
or Alexander W. Doniphan is equalled in Missouri history by
that performed by David Barton, Edward Bates, Nathan
Boone, Alexander Buckner, John D. Cook, Henry Dodge,
Duff Green, Samuel S. Hammond, John Rice Jones, Alexander
McNair, John Scott and many others of the forty-one dele
gates of Missouri's first constitutional convention. While
the fame of Boone and Doniphan is fittingly preserved in
Missouri county and town named in their honor, only three of the
forty-one delegates are today so remembered.! Indeed the
lives of many of these constitution framers are today so hidden,
not only from the general public but even from the historian,

' Barton, Eay, and Scott counties, Missouri. Lillard county, Missouri, was
named after Colonel William Lillard, a delegate, but the name was later changed
to Lafayette county. Boone county, Iowa, was named in honor of Major Nathan
Boone, a delegate, who was one of the first white men to set foot in that district.
Bates county, Missouri, was named in honor of Governor Frederick Bates, who
was the flrst Secretary of Missouri Territory and later the second Governor of
the State of Missouri. Governor Bates was a brother of Edward Bates. Clark
county, Missouri, was named in honor of WilUam Clark, territorial governor of
Missouri, and uot in honor of Eobert P. Clark, a delegate. Henry county,
Missouri, was named after Patrick Henry, and not in honor of Colonel Malcolm
Henry, a delegate. Perry county, Missouri, after Commodore Perry, and not
in honor of Samuel Perry, a delegate. SuUivan county, Missouri, after Sullivan
county, Tennessee, and not in honor of Major John C. SulUvan, a, delegate.
(135)

136 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
that only after years of labor is it possible to compile sketches
of their lives.' This is the more singular when we consider
that with few exceptions the convention was composed of
the foremost men of Missouri of that day.' It included in its
membership so many forceful leaders whose remarkable careers
and abilities arouse our admiration that it seems unfortunate
to be limited to sketches of only the most noted of them. We
believe, however, that the most eminent delegates were David
Barton, John Rice Jones, Duff Green, Edward Bates, and
Henry Dodge. The first four were lawyers; the last was en
gaged in lead mining and farming. Although in the conven
tion the influence of John D. Cook, Jonathan Smith Findlay,
Alexander McNair, John Scott, or of several other delegates
may have been greater than that of Henry Dodge, and perhaps
equal to that of Duff Green, we have selected these two on ac
count of their preeminently superior ability and their more
remarkable and distinguished careers.
Excepting Jones all five were entering the prime of life.
Their average age was not quite thirty-eight years: the young
est, Bates, who next to Baber was the most youthful member
of the convention, had not yet completed his twenty-seventh
year; the oldest, Jones, who was one of the four delegates that
had passed the three score mark, was sixty -one years old.
Barton and Dodge were entering middle age, being respectively
thirty-seven and thirty-eight years old, and Green, one of the
three youngest members under thirty, had barely attained the
age of twenty-nine. Of these five the first to pass away was
Jones, who with two other delegates did not live to see the
constitution of 1820 in operation four years; Barton died within

¦ The foUowing generaUzations on the delegates will not be supported with
authorities, owing to the character of the summaries.
Houck, op. cit.. III. 253, speaking of the delegates says: "At any rate, it
has been a matter of no small difficulty to secure reliable facts as to some of these
worthies of other days, and in a few instances no detaUs whatever could be found,
so completely have their lives and very existence faded from the recoUection of
the present generation."
' The most noted exception was Thomas H. Benton. Whether Benton
feared defeat at the hands of his many enemies, if he became a candidate for the
convention, or reasoned that he could exert more infiuence both on the constitu
tion and his future political fortunes, if he remained outside that body, is a matter
of conjecture.

Fathers of the State. 137
seventeen years; while Dodge, Bates, and Green, three of the
last four survivors of the convention, lived to see another
organic law govern Missouri, a civil war threatening the ruin
of the Nation, and finally the restoration of peace.
Nothing illustrates more clearly the cosmopolitan char
acter of the convention than the lives of its leaders. No two
were natives of the same state or territory, and only Dodge
and Green were reared in the same state: Bates was born and
reared in Virginia ; Barton in what is now the State of Tennessee ;
Green in Kentucky; Jones in Wales and England; and Dodge
in what is now the States of Indiana, Kentucky and Missouri.
The Bates family was one of the early English families of Vir
ginia; the Bartons were of Scotch descent and date back to 1546,
when they were great merchant captains and as such were
called "Kings of the Sea;" the Dodge family was of pure Eng
lish descent and had early settled in New England, where it
grew for over a century and a half before trying its fortunes in
the west; the Green family of Kentucky was of Welsh descent,
and its first American sire was one of the original owners of the
Shenandoah Valley ; the Jones family is so ancient in the records
of Wales that its history is finally lost in the maze of legends of
that country. In this connection we cannot refrain from
noticing the remarkable good fortune that has followed the
descendants of four of these men. Excepting David Barton,
all married and left large families; and some of the members of
each have achieved distinction in public life. It is no exaggera
tion to state that these four men have lineal descendants scat
tered from ocean to ocean and from the Gulf to Canada.
The most popular man not only in the convention but in
Missouri in 1820 was David Barton. A native of Tennessee
both by birth and rearing and a member of one of the oldest
families in America, he has always been written of by historians
and biographers in the highest terms. He was undoubtedly
the most interesting and forceful speaker among the delegates,
and it is a question whether his superior or even equal as an
orator could have been found west of the Mississippi River at
that time, not even excepting Benton. We are certain that
this Valley never sent to Congress a more vivacious, witty.

138 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
sarcastic, and fascinating speaker. Not only was Barton a
brilliant speaker but he was also a man of sterling integrity.*
Until he cast his vote for Adams in 1825, Barton was regarded
both at home and throughout the Nation as one of its greatest
leaders. His downfall in 1830 was due to this act of his in
1825, and to his refusal to align himself with the Jacksonian-
Benton Democrats.* Barton was one statesman Missouri
produced who feared neither Benton nor Jackson, and who
alone could meet "Old Bullion" on the floor of the Senate with
greater hope of victory than fear of defeat. Few public men
in Missouri history have been so idolized, so unanimously raised
to the highest public position in the gift of the commonwealth,
and so soon retired to private life. His life supplies all the
material necessary for a tragedy. After much scheming and
working he secured the election of his friend, Benton, to the
United States Senate, and this was accomplished only after
using his own great popularity to overcome the most stubborn
opposition due to Benton's unpopularity. In four years his
friend had become his enemy, and in ten years was the chief
instrument in causing his political death. Seven years later
in a cabin near Boonville the ravings of a lunatic were silenced,
and Missouri's first United States Senator and one of her great
est statesmen and orators had passed away.
While Barton was the most popular delegate and the most
brilliant orator in the convention, he was neither so well edu
cated nor so deeply versed in law as were several of his col
leagues. In these qualities ranking over all the members was
John Rice Jones, one of Missouri's first three Supreme Court
Judges. This scholarly lawyer was an American by adoption,
having been born in Wales of an old Welsh line. He received

' As an example of this last quality might be noted Barton's refusal to accept
the very Uberal courtesy — mileage aUowed United States Senators when they
are convened in executive session on the expiration of a Congress.
' Grave indictments were also made against the morals of Barton but we doubt
if this was very influential in bringing about his defeat. Even in 1830 he was
more popular than any other man in Missouri, excepting Benton. And the
Benton forces were unable in that year to muster as many votes in the legislature
as Barton did. The Missouri legislature in 1830 really elected a man who was
the choice of the Barton forces. Alexander Buckner was a Jackson man who
believed in Barton's policies. He was a compromise Senator and was far more
acceptable to the Barton men than to the Bentonites.

Fathers of the State. 139
an excellent education in both law and medicine at Oxford
University, and later practiced law in London. Coming to
America in 1784 he formed the acquaintance of such eminent
men as Benjamin Franklin, and Dr. Benjamin Rush in Phila
delphia. Attaching himself to General George Rogers Clark's
force in 1786, Jones soon attracted attention in the Old North
west Territory both as a lawyer and as a politician. He was
the first English speaking lawyer in Indiana Territory, its first
Attorney General for four years, a member of its legislative
council for nearly a like period, and with John Johnson made
the first revision of its laws. Having moved from Vincennes
to the Illinois country first in 1789 and later in 1809, he holds
the honor of being the first practicing lawyer resident in the
latter territory. His knowledge of law is said to have been
remarkable, being deeply versed not only in the English system
of jurisprudence but equally so in that of the Continent. He
was, we believe, not only the most learned member of the con
vention but between 1790 and 1810 was also the greatest lawyer
west of Ohio if not west of the Alleghany Mountains. His
practice at one time included the entire northwest comprising
the State of Ohio, the Territories of Indiana and Illinois, upper
Louisiana — later the Territory of Missouri, and the Territory
and State of Kentucky. We know of no other lawyer in the
early history of the United States who enjoyed so extensive a
practice over such a large domain of territory and under so many
systems of jurisdiction. His success as a lawyer was equalled
by his accomplishments as a scholar and a linguist, and was
greatly aided by his ability as a speaker. He was a skillful
reasoner, and a perfect master of satire and invective. His
contemporaries tell us he was a brilliant advocate; and his
great knowledge of books and men combined with a wide ex
perience, a restless and fearless disposition, and passions which
when aroused swept all before them, made him a most effective
and formidable opponent in either court or legislature. He was
deeply versed both in mathematics and the classics, and was
accomplished in the Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, Welsh, and
English languages. United with these remarkable qualities of
mind, John Rice Jones possessed the industry and skill of a

140 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
man of finance. Together with Moses Austin he opened the
first cupola or reverberatory furnace in the United States, and
his progressive ideas on lead mining were favorably commented
on by the United States government officials. He was one of
the wealthiest men in the Great West, being part owner of the
richest and oldest lead mine in the United States at that time,
and one of the largest land owners in the country. It is inter
esting to note that the direct descendants of this remarkable
man have become prominently connected with the history of
Illinois, Texas, Iowa, Arkansas, Missouri, Michigan, and Wis
consin.' In this respect we cannot forbear from contrasting Jones
and Barton. While the one brought up a family whose male
line for decades produced noted statesmen and politicians and
whose female branch perpetuated the sterling qualities of its
sire in a long list of descendants, the other died a bachelor.
The former lives in hundreds of his lineal descendants; the
latter is remembered only in the pages of history and in the
memoirs of his contemporaries and admirers.
One of the most devoted friends and worshippers of Barton
was a reserved and refined young delegate, who only four years
before had been admitted to the territorial bar of Missouri.

• Eice Jones, the eldest son, was an early and brilliant lawyer at Kaskaskia
in 1806. He was a member of the lower house in the legislature of Indiana Ter
ritory and his prominent and successful fight for the separation of Illinois from
that territory resulted in his untimely death at the hands of an assassin.
John Eice Jones, another son, became prominent in public life in Texas.
After helping that State achieve her independence, he was appointed the first
Postmaster General under the Eepublic ; and also under the provisional, ad interim,
and constitutional governments. Two of his brothers, Augustus and Myers
Fisher, also achieved distinction in the Lone Star State.
The most prominent son, George WaUace Jones, after holding office in Mis
souri and serving in the Black Hawk War, was elected a Delegate to Congress
from Michigan Territory and later from the Territory of Wisconsin, and in 1848
was elected one of the first two United States Senators from Iowa, being reelected
to that office in 1852.
A daughter, Harriet Jones, married the Honorable John Scott, who was
Missouri's third territorial Delegate to Congress and who from 1820 to 1826 was
that state's only Eepresentative in the national legislature. Another daughter,
Elizabeth Jones, married the Honorable Andrew Scott of Missouri, who held a
Federal judgeship in Arkansas. Cf., Wilkes, Geo. W. Jones, in la. Hist. Eecord,
First Series, V. 433-456; W. A. Burt Jones, John Rice Jones, in Chicago Hist.
Soc. CoU. IV. 230-270; Eozler, Hist. Miss. Valley, 274-278; Houck, op. cit.. III.
256f; Conrad, Ency. Mo. Hist., IV. 470.

Fathers of the State. 141
Never did the law of the attraction of opposites work with
greater force than in the lives of David Barton and Edward
Bates. Although maintaining a friendship similar to that
which existed between David and Jonathan, they were in habits
the antipodes of each other. The one was not only a confirmed
victim of drink but led one of the most depraved and immoral
lives in the history of great American statesmen; the other was
the first president and the chief organizer of the Missouri Tem
perance Society, and, according to his most intimate friends
and most bitter enemies, was an example of cleanliness and
purity in his every private act. While Jones commanded the
respect of the convention by the strength of his logic, and
Barton won its good will and admiration by the persuasiveness
and brilliance of his oratory, the youthful Bates entered into
the hearts of all by virtue of his subtle mind, his pleasing and
sincere manner, his high moral fiber, and his remarkable ability
as a convincing speaker. Edward Bates was not only the most
beloved but in many respects was one of the greatest men Mis
souri has produced. His ideals were of the highest order, his
public career the longest — being finally crowned with a Cabinet
position after nearly a half century of unremitting labors — and
his entire life a model of success before the bar, on the floor,
and in the home.
The pupil of one of the most prominent lawyers in the
Mississippi Valley, Rufus Easton, who was also the teacher of
that remarkable but unfortunate advocate, Joshua Barton, Ed
ward Bates in turn became the friend and preceptor of the most
brilliant and learned member of the Missouri Bar, James O.
Broadhead. Although essentially a lawyer. Bates was one of the
chief organizers and for decades was the leader of the Whig party
in Missouri. Even after the rise of that great Whig statesman,
James S. Rollins, he still retained in a large degree the mentor-
ship of his party. While Bates is perhaps better known as a
politician than as an advocate, he occupied comparatively few
public offices. Some may explain this on the ground of his
having belonged to the minority party in Missouri; but we are
inclined to credit it to his dislike of office holding. Although
Edward Bates was a remarkably successful lawyer, it required

142 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
his constant efforts in that profession to meet the expense of
rearing his large family. To him the holding of public offices
was a sacrifice, and it was only because of his highly developed
sense of civic duty that he was at times induced to enter actively
into public life. Notwithstanding his disinclination along this
line, his record in both state and national politics is one of the
longest and most successful in the history of the Middle West.
His first office was held at the early age of twenty-four,
when he was appointed Prosecuting Attorney of the Northern
Circuit of Missouri Territory; his last public position was en
joyed after he had reached the ripe age of seventy, when he held
the office of Attorney General in the first Cabinet of President
Lincoln. During the forty-seven years which intervened be
tween his initiation into and graduation from public life, Edward
Bates was elected or appointed to the following offices: dele
gate to Missouri's first constitutional convention in 1820; first
Attorney General of Missouri, 1820; State Representative in
Missouri Legislature, 1822 and 1834; State Senator, 1830;
United States District Attorney for Missouri, 1824; Missouri's
second Representative in Congress, 1826; appointed Secretary
of War in 1850 by President Fillmore but refused the office;
and Judge of the St. Louis Land Court, 1858. Besides holding
these offices, he was three times brought prominently before
the eyes of the nation. First, in 1847, while president of the
first River and Harbor Improvement Convention held in
America, Bates attracted the attention of both Canada and
the United States. His great speech delivered before that
body marks an epoch in the history of Federal Aid for internal
improvements located off the tide- waters of the seas. This
speech was made without previous preparation, and unfortu
nately, it was very imperfectly recorded. We are told that
every reporter present forgot both duty and interest while
listening to it and that the copies sent to the offices in New
York, Chicago, and St. Louis, were the result of a hasty council
of the various newspaper representatives who were forced to
rely solely on their memory. Notwithstanding this incom
plete and very unsatisfactory manner of presentation to the
public, the effect of this speech on the nation was electrical.

Fathers of the State. 143
Even that great statesman, John C. Calhoun, who for years
had consistently and successfully opposed the position here
taken by Bates, was won over by the skill and logic of this
exposition of national aid to strictly internal improvements.
The second rise of Bates to national fame was his refusal
in 1850 to accept the office of Secretary of War in President
Fillmore's Cabinet. Not only was his appointment to this
office unsolicited by Bates but it came as a surprise to him.
Conditions for his acceptance were the most propitious, and
the country could scarcely credit the news of his refusal. His
reason, however, was satisfactory to all. He frankly explained
that the cost of rearing his large family, which consisted of
seventeen children, prevented his relinquishing even tempo
rarily his lucrative law practice.
In 1856 Bates was president of the National Whig Con
vention which met in Baltimore. In 1858 Harvard University
conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Laws in honor of his
ability as a statesman, an orator, and a lawyer. Having be
come a Republican, Bates a third time attracted the attention
of the Nation by being one of the presidential candidates voted
on in the Chicago Convention of 1860, and after Lincoln's
election he was offered the second choice of Cabinet positions,
Seward having been placed for the office of Secretary of State.
Bates chose the Attorney Generalship, which he held until
1863-4, when ill health forced his resignation. His death in
1869 was lamented by the entire Nation, and his funeral was
one of the largest ever witnessed in this commonwealth. The
life of Bates was a model in almost every respect. We cannot
omit noticing one of his rules which is charged with revelations
of character. On the best authority, Bates was never known
to accept at law a bad cause however large the fee; and in
numerous instances he engaged in a just cause with little or no
compensation.'

' Bates left a large number of descendants, some of them achieved great
distinction in public life. One son. Barton Bates, held the high position of a
Judge of the Supreme Court of Missouri and the offlce of Attorney General;
another, John Bates, was breveted lieutenant-colonel for his services in the
Union army during the Civil War, and in 1898, atthe breaking out of the Spanish-
American War, was made brigadier general in the regular army.

144 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
In summarizing the salient features in the lives of Bates
and Barton, one sees more points of likeness than contrast,
except in regard to their personal habits. Both belong wholly
to Missouri; both were lawyers of high rank; both had studied
law under able jurists; both were interesting and at times
brilliant speakers, and Barton's eloquence frequently reached
the finish and polish of oratory; both were politicians and be
longed to the same party; both were exceedingly popular, and
Bates exerted an influence, both at home and over the nation,
out of all proportion to the strength of his party in Missouri;
and both died without having accumulated any considerable
amount of property.
When we turn, however, to compare the lives of Jones and
Dodge we are struck with the relatively few points of likeness
and the large number of contrasts. The career of each is today
the prized possession of three American commonwealths, Jones
belonging to the history of Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri,
and Dodge of Missouri, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Each left large
families, each a son who was elected a Territorial Delegate to
Congress and who later became a United States Senator. On
the other hand, Jones was the possessor of one of the finest
educations possible in his time and which he had obtained in
the oldest of English universities; Dodge had received little
schooling, and had obtained his entire education principally
by rough experience with men and by self-instruction. The
one was a scholar, and an accomplished linguist in six lan
guages; the other was familiar with only the English tongue
and various Indian dialects. One was at the head of the legal
profession of the west and knew personally every important
member of the bar in that section; the other became at one
time the most popular and the most celebrated military leader
north of the Ohio and west of the Mississippi, and had camped
with friends and foes from the Canadian line to the Arkansas
River and from the Great Lakes to the Rocky Mountains. One
was an eloquent and forceful speaker; the other a man of few
words and prone to physical action. Jones starting with
nothing amassed an immense fortune; Dodge inheriting a large
estate lost much of it, and, although prosperous in most of his

Fathers of the State. 145
mining enterprises, never accumulated more than a moderate
competence, owing to his liberality. While Jones was never
more than a candidate for election to the United States Senate,
Dodge rose step by step from the office of deputy sheriff in the
Territory of Louisiana to the Governorship of Wisconsin Ter
ritory, was elected a Delegate to Congress from that Territory,
and finally became a United States Senator from the State of
Wisconsin. It is even reported that if Dodge had allowed his
name to be used against Van Buren's in 1844, he would have
been nominated and elected president instead of Polk.
General Henry Dodge, or "Honest Harry Dodge" as he
was affectionately called by the West, was born at Port Vin
cennes, October 12, 1782, of English and Scotch-Irish parents.
His minority was spent under his mother's guidance in Ken
tucky and later under his father's direction in upper Louisiana.
His military career began early in 1806 and continued for
nearly three decades; his civil career covered a period of over
half a century. The former won him a place in popular favor
next to that occupied by General Jackson; the latter raised
him to the high honor of being appointed the first Governor
of the original Territory of Wisconsin and also of holding that
office two terms after the separation of Iowa Territory; of
being elected the Territorial Delegate to Congress from Wis
consin, when a change in national politics had lost him his
former position; and finally of being elected the first United
States Senator from the State of Wisconsin. Although not a
great man either in war or in politics. Dodge was an eminently
successful one in both. His talents were essentially those of a
leader, having been so endowed by nature in both mind and
body and so trained by an active life among frontiersmen and
Indians. Since the achievements of Dodge in the field are
familiar to students of western history, we will turn to his less
known though perhaps equally interesting and valuable career
in politics. In politics Dodge was a staunch Democrat, and a warm,
personal friend of Jackson and Benton. As the chief executive
of Wisconsin Territory he exerted the greatest influence in the
enacting of good laws, both by forceful and decisively worded
M S— 10

146 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
messages and by his direct influence over the members of the
legislature. He had that rare faculty of being able to main
tain his prerogatives as an official without making enemies.
His success in dealing with scores of Indian tribes both in peace
and war was marked and to them he was one of the most feared
and respected men in the west. The red sons of the forest and
plain, whether enemies or friends, relied on the word of Henry
Dodge when the threats and promises of other leaders had
failed to move them. His strong common sense and fundamental
honesty is shown in his refusal either to meddle in the fight
over the location of the capital of Wisconsin Territory or to
accept as a gift any lots in Madison.
After entering the halls of Congress, he always felt bound
by the instructions of his legislature even though at times
these were contrary to his personal convictions. He consist
ently advocated internal improvements, an adequate military
force on the frontier, a duty on lead, and cheap land. His
convictions on the land question were so statesmanlike that we
marvel at the comparative silence of his biographers on this
subject. As Governor of Wisconsin Territory in his second
annual message of November 7, 1837, he said: "Land was the
immediate gift of God to man, and from the earliest history of
the world was designed for cultivation and improvement, and
should cease to be an object of speculation." "Speculators in
the public lands have purchased large tracts east of the Mis
sissippi in this Territory, which remain waste until they will
sell for the highest prices; thereby retarding the growth and
settlement of the Territory to the great injury of the actual
settler." On February 24, 1853, in supporting the Homestead
Bill, Senator Dodge delivered what must be regarded as one of
the most truthful, prophetic, and powerful speeches that found
its way into the record. That speech is now almost forgotten,
but before its centennial can be observed, not only scholars
but men of affairs and all progressive citizens will be familiar
with the fundamental truths it contains. We can recall but
few instances in American history where our statesmen and
writers have as thoroughly appreciated so great an evil, so

Fathers of the State. 147
succinctly described it, and so accurately perceived its remedy
as Senator Dodge did in this exposition of the land question.'
Interesting as is the life of Henry Dodge, we do not regard
it more fascinating than was the checkered career of General
Duff Green. In several respects Duff Green was one of the most
remarkable of those men who framed Missouri's first constitu
tion. He was beyond dispute the most versatile man in the
convention; and became its greatest politician. In this latter
capacity he attained a national reputation. Later he achieved
honor as a diplomat, and finally in his old age received pos
terity's blessing by constructing a railroad and founding a
city. A native of Kentucky, Duff Green was related to some of
the best and oldest families in Virginia. At an early age he
taught school, studied law and was admitted to the bar, and sold
goods as a country merchant. Having immigrated to Missouri
Territory about 1817 he engaged in politics, mail contracts,
speculation, and also had a large law practice. He established
the first mail stage line west of the Mississippi river ; and founded
the town of Chariton, being its first postmaster. After the

' The following extract has been selected from that speech: "The soil of a
country is the gift of the Creator to His creatures, and, in a government of the
people, that gift should not become the object of speculation and monopoly.
Springing from the earth and destined to return to it, every man desires to possess
some of it, wants a spot he can call his own. It is a deep and absorbing feeling
which no people have manifested more strongly than the Americans. If you
desire to render this Eepublic indestructible, to extinguish every germ of agra
rianisra, and secure for ages the quiet enjoyment of vested rights, you should give
an interest in the soil to every man who asks it. If every quarter section of the
pubUc land was the bona fide property of an actual settler, it would do more to
perpetuate our liberties than aU the constitutions. State or National, which have
ever been devised. Incorporate every man with the soil, throw around him the
blessed endearments of home, and you bind him in an allegiance stronger than a
thousand oaths." When we recaU that these words were spoken not by a rabid
demagogue or a pauper social disturber, but by an old man in his seventy-first
year, who was a United States Senator, who held large landed interests, and who
based his statements on a personal experience in public life that had covered
nearly half a century, then the weight of their truth is increased tenfold.
If it were not too much of a digression we would be glad to enter even briefly
into the private life of this celebrated "Captain of Aggressive Civilization," to
describe his views on such questions as religion and slavery, to eulogize his re
markable mother, Nancy Ann Hunter, who alone in the annals of this nation gave
birth to two United States Senators, Henry Dodge and Lewis F. Linn, and to
expand upon this, the only example in our history, of a father and son — Henry
Dodge and Augustus Caesar Dodge — sitting together first in the lower house of
our national legislature and finally in the Senate chamber.

148 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
framing of Missouri's first constitution. Duff Green was elected
a representative from Howard county in 1820 to the State
legislature and in 1822 was elected a State Senator. In 1821
he was chosen Brigadier-General of the first brigade of the first
division of the Missouri militia, and owing to his holding this
office together with his services in Kentucky in the War of 1812,
he was always known as General Duff Green. In 1823 Green
became owner and editor of Benton's organ, the St. Louis
Enquirer, and two years later purchased and edited the United
States Telegraph at Washington. From that time to his death
in 1875, he was always more or less before the public. As
editor of the Telegraph he became one of the most powerful
factors in national politics, and is credited with having been
one of the chief instruments in the election of Jackson in 1828.
His paper was then given the government patronage, and this
placed Green in good financial circumstances. His subsequent
break with Jackson in 1830, his support of Clay in 1832 and of
Calhoun in 1836, did not ruin him, as it did many other pol
iticians. His paper continued to wield the greatest influence,
and was known for its aggressiveness and independence, and
for its large and philosophical views on national finance.
General Green visited Europe frequently on important
public missions, conferring with leading statesmen and crowned
heads. In 1843 he was sent to Mexico to aid in conducting
negotiations for the acquisition of Texas; and under President
Taylor's administration was again dispatched there on public
business. In later life he took the contract for constructing the
Tennessee Railroad from Dalton, Georgia, to Knoxville, Tenn
essee, and was one of the founders of the former city. In the
lives of few men are there crowded so many different and
dramatic events as are revealed in Green's career. In many
ways it is an epitome of the biography of the entire convention
of 1820. The public life both civil and military of these forty-one
men is quite sufficient to justify our stating that seldom in the
history of any commonwealth established after 1789 has there
been a more notable gathering of state constitution framers

JOHN RICE JONES
From Houck's Hist. Mo. Ill 257.

JOHN D. COOK
Flora Houck's Hist, Mo. III. 266.

JOHN SCO'IT.
l-ioiu Houck's Hi,t Mt,. Ill, n

J(J,\.'\T1L\N RAMS.'W.
Frora Houck's llitl .\lo. III. 2(.f.

B. H. REEVES.
From Houck's Hist Mo III. 25.;

HIRAM H. BABER.
From Houck'b Uist. Mo. III. 2bs

SOME DELEGATES ')'0 'I'HE MISSOURI CONSTITUTIONAL
CO.WENTION 1820.

72834— us

Fathers of the State. 149
than was this one. It included the first United States Cabinet
official appointed from west of the Mississippi river, three men
who later represented Missouri and Wisconsin in the United
States Senate, and, so far as influence on Missouri's constitution
is concerned, a fourth United States Senator might be men
tioned. ' Of those who had or were to enter the lower house
of Congress there numbered four;!" ^^^^^ j^q delegates later sat
in the gubernatorial chair of Wisconsin and of Missouri.!! One
delegate was to hold the office of lieutenant-governor; two that
of attorney general; two that of secretary of state; and two
that of state auditor. !2 Two of the leading members of this
convention became judges of the Supreme Court of Missouri,
two were later circuit judges in this State, and one had pre
sided over the first circuit court held west of the Mississippi
River.!3 The membership of the convention is also noteworthy in
the remarkably large number of state legislators who composed
it. The laws of five American commonwealths today bear the
influence of twenty-three of the framers of Missouri's first
constitution. Including its secretary, the convention com
manded the ability of sixteen state senators, and sixteen state

• Edward Bates, appointed Secretary of War by President FiUmore, 1850 ,
and resigned; later appointed Attomey General by President Lincoln 1861-1864;
David Barton, first United States Senator from Missouri 1820-1830; Henry Dodge,
first United States Senator from Wisconsin 1848-1857. Thomas H. Benton,
the colleague of Barton, was United States Senator from Missouri 1820-1850.
'"Edward Bates, Missouri's second Eepresentative, 1826; Henry Dodge,
flrst Delegate from Wisconsin Territory, 1841-1845; Samuel S. Hammond, Eep
resentative from Georgia, 1803; John Scott, Missouri's third Territorial Delegate,
1816 (17) — 1820, and Missouri's first Eepresentative, 1820-1826.
" Henry Dodge, first territorial governor of Wisconsin Territory, 1836-1841,
and again, 1845-1848; Alexander McNair, first state governor of Missouri, 1820-
1824. " Benjamin H. Eeeves, Missouri's second Ueutenant-governor, 1824; Edward
Bates, Missouri's flrst attomey general, 1820, and John Eice Jones, former at
tomey general of Indiana Territory, 1805; Samuel S. Hammond, later secretary
of state of South CaroUna, about 1830, and WilUam G. Pettus (secretary ofthe
convention), Missouri's second secretary of state, 1821-24; Benjamin H. Eeeves,
Missouri's second state auditor, 1821-23, and Hiram H. Baber, Missouri's sixth
state auditor, 1837-45.
" John D. Cook and John Eice Jones, two of the first three judges of the
Supreme Court of Missouri, 1820; David Barton, judge of Northern Circuit of
Missouri Territory 1815-18, held first Circuit Court west of the Mississippi;
James Evans and Eichard S. Thomas, Circuit Court Judges of Missouri, 1837
and 1822.

150 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
representatives, — there being eight members who later sat in
both houses.!* In fact to each of the first ten General Assem
blies of the State of Missouri there were elected from one to
eleven men who had sat in this convention, and two became
the president pro tempore of the Senate.!* Nor was their direct
influence on Missouri's legislature limited to the common
wealth period. During the previous eight years of the exist
ence of Missouri Territory there appear on the general assembly
rolls the names of eight men as members of her legislative
council and eight as representatives who in 1820 sat as delegates
in the convention.!^ In each of the four general assemblies of
Missouri Territory there were from four to eight members who
were elected delegates in 1820. Thus for a period of thirty-
eight years the laws of Missouri were more or less moulded by
those who framed her first constitution. And for eleven years
her only representatives in Congress were those who were dele
gates in 1820. What is still more remarkable is that Missouri's
first constitution was directly influenced by her first three
United States Senators, one of them, Benton, — although not
a delegate — continued in the upper national chamber for thirty
years. But, excepting Edward Bates, Duff Green, and Henry
Dodge, not a single member of this convention held an im
portant civil position in public life twenty years after the
framing of Missouri's first constitution. A new generation of

" The flve states are Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, and South
CaroUna. The following delegates had been or became state senators in Mis
souri: Barton, 1834; Bates, 1830; Bettis, 1828; Brown, 1826; Burckhartt, 1824;
1830; Buckner, 1822; Chouteau, 1820; Dawson, 1824, 1834; Emmons, 1820;
Green, 1822; Perry, 1820; Pratte, 1820; Eeeves, 1820, 1832; Talbott, 1820; Thomas,
1826; (Pettus, 1832). Of these the eight who were also representatives were:
Bates, 1822, 1834; Bettis, 1822, 1824, 1826; Burckhartt, 1822, 1826; Buckner,
1830; Dawson, 1832; Emmons, 1836, 1838; Green, 1820; Eeeves, Kentucky Legis
lature. Besides these were eight who held seats in the lower house of Missouri,
Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee. Nathaniel Cook (Missouri),
1822; Hammond (Georgia and South CaroUna); Heath (Missouri), 1820; Henry
(South Carolina); LiUard (Missouri), 1820, and also in Tennessee Legislature;
McPerron (Missouri), 1820; Eamsay (Kentucky), and also in Missouri Legis
lature, 1822; Eay (Missouri), 1820.
1' Emmons, 1822; Burckhartt, 1830.
¦• The eight delegates who had been in the legislative council were Emmons,
Hammond, Scott, Jones, Perry, Eiddick, J. Cook, Dawson; in the house of repre
sentatives, Thomas, Byrd, Heath, Dawson, N. Cook, Talbott, Barton, SulUvan.
Hammond was president of the flrst legislative council in 1813. and Emmons in
the last in 1818. Barton was speaker of the house in 1818.

Fathers of the State. 151
political leaders had risen, and in the place of Barton, Burck
hartt, Buckner, the two Cooks, Dawson, McNair, Scott, Em
mons, Evans, Hammond, Jones, Reeves, and other popular
and influential members of the convention of 1820, the pilots
of the ship of state were such noted men as Atchison, Campbell,
Rollins, Price, Doniphan, Phelps, Woodson, Boggs, Jackson,
Gardenhire, Switzler, Bay, Broadhead, Bingham and others.
In addition to holding many minor public offices as those
of county clerk, recorder, sheriff and treasurer, and justice of
the peace, some of the delegates were to be or had been ap
pointed to important civil positions under the National Govern
ment, besides those already mentioned. Among these were the
offices of Marshal, Deputy Marshal, Attorney General, Deputy
Attorney General, District Attorney, Lieutenant-Governor or
Commandant of upper Louisiana, Surveyor General and Deputy
Surveyor General of Illinois, Missouri and Arkansas, Register
and Clerk of various Land Offices, Judge of the St. Louis Land
Court, Receiver of Public Money at St. Louis, and Diplomat.!'
The war record of the convention delegates and its secretary
is also sufficiently noteworthy to warrant attention. Extending
at least from 1775, if not prior to that year, to 1850 this record
embraced the first three great national wars of the United
States besides including the famous Black Hawk War and many
Indian engagements. Twenty-one men of this convention, or
exactly one-half its membership including the secretary, had
seen or were to see military service. Of these, three had served
as colonels in the Revolutionary War;!' eighteen had been jj^

"Baber, United States Deputy Marshal (1820, 1830), and United States
Marshal Missouri (1852); Barton, Deputy Attorney General Missouri Territory
(1813); Bates, Judge St. Louis Land Court (1858); J. Cook, United States Dis
trict Attorney Missouri; Dodge, United States Marshal Missouri Territory and
State (1813-1822); Findlay, Eegister United States Land Offlce Lexington, Mis
souri (1823); Green, United States Diplomat; Hammond, First Lieutenant
Governor or Commandant of upper Louisiana (1804); Jones, Attorney General
Indian Territory (1801-05); McNair, Eegister St. Louis Land Offlce (1818);
Pratte, Eeceiver Public Money at St. Louis; Eector, United States Surveyor
General of lUinois, Missouri and Arkansas; Riddick, Secretary Board of Land
Commissioners at St. Louis (1808); SulUvan, United States Deputy Surveyor
General of Illinois, Missouri and Arkansas; Pettus, clerk Land Office at St. Louis
(1818). ¦•Hammond, Henry, and Lillard.

152 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
the War of 1812,!^ ranging in rank from volunteer to brigadier-
general; four later served inthe Black Hawk War;^" and one in
the Mexican War.^! Boone and Dodge gained the greatest
distinction in the field of War. One attained the higher rank;
the other, the greater popularity. Boone held the longer
record and after twenty-one years of continuous service in the
United States army was finally commissioned lieutenant-
colonel at the age of seventy-one.^^ Prior to his connection
with the regular army, he had fought in the War of 1812 and had
seen service in various Indian campaigns. Dodge made an
enviable record in his campaign against Black Hawk, and,
after the overthrow of that celebrated Indian Chief, won fame
in the United States army as colonel of the first regiment of
dragoons in the army history of the United States. Prior to
his connection with the regular army, Dodge had continuously
held some rank in either the Missouri or Wisconsin militias from
1806. The war record of Dodge covers a period of nearly
twenty-nine years; that of Boone over thirty-one years.
While the military and the civil public careers of western
pioneers are both interesting and significant, we are inclined
to regard with some favor those bits of biographical information
which are usually found in the back of Bibles, or in the columns
of the press, or which can be obtained only from descendants
and friends of those long departed. We cannot here examine
all the wealth of detail extant relating to the delegates and will
generalize on such points as occupation, nativity, descent,
education, economic position, and age. Under the best con
ditions it is almost impossible to verify every statement relating
to this kind of information. And, we have therefore inclined
towards sacrificing spectacular and striking generalizations for
the sake of accuracy. One of the most fascinating and profitable
studies of any people is that relating to their occupation. To

"Barton, Bates, Boone, Byrd, Cleaver, N. Cook. Dawson, Dodge, Emmons,
Green, Jones, Lillard, McNair, Pratte, Eamsey, Rector, Riddick and Pettus.
Dodge was brigadier-general of the Missouri miUtia; Eamsay held the same rank
in the Kentucky miUtia.
" Boone, Brown, Byrd, and Dodge. Dodge was caUed the hero of this war.
" Boone.
" 1853.

Fathers of the State. 153
the historian the means employed by man to gain a livelihood
takes rank in importance with his religion and race. To the
pioneer it was as important and pressing as it is today to the
greatest specialist in the city. There is this difference to be
noted, however: the pioneer was as a rule more versatile; the
twentieth century man better trained. The one successfully
pursued from two to a half dozen different occupations; the
latter is more frequently engaged in but one line of labor. Even
in politics, where are found the followers of every occupation,
and which is as cosmopolitan in professions and trade as New
York in people, there had not appeared in 1820 that general
devotion on the part of one class of citizens which later became
so marked. Of course politics was not then so profitable, unless
one wished to incur public disfavor by land speculation, and
the spoils system had not yet become the Mecca of public life.
But, waiving these two extraneous reasons, we still believe
that politics, in common with most all other occupations, ex
cepting the law, was not so specialized a means of livelihood
in 1820 as it is today. Nor was politics so peculiarly the pos
session of the legal class as it is today, although practically all
lawyers were also politicians. Of the forty-one delegates
elected to the convention of 1820, thirty were more or less
active in politics, of whom only nine were essentially lawyers.^'
Every lawyer in the convention was a politician, but all the
politicians were not lawyers.
Although the various occupations of each delegate are
now fairly well known, it is still almost an impossibility to as
certain which was the principal vocation of each one at that
time. Duff Green was a lawyer with a large practice; he was
also an astute politician, a successful business man, a large
land owner and speculator, had formerly been a teacher, and
later became an editor, publisher, railroad contractor, and
diplomat. Similar examples of the difficulty of selecting a
delegate's principal means of livelihood are found in the lives
of a majority of these men. Was Dodge a lead mine operator
or a farmer; was Jones one of these, or was he a lawyer and
politician; was Nathaniel Cook a politician, a farmer or a sur-
" Heath practiced law but he was more essentially a business man .

154 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
veyor; was Boone a farmer or a surveyor; was Bettis a mer
chant, a farmer, or a doctor; was McFerron a politician or a
teacher? We are even driven to this: Every delegate except
two engaged in two or more lines of work. In 1820 these
forty-one men represented eight occupations under the very
broad classifications of law, politics, business — including mer
cantile and mining pursuits, fur trading, salt manufacturing
and finance — , agriculture — including farming and land owning — ,
medicine, civil engineering — confined to surveying — , education —
confined to teaching — , and journalism.
Politics absorbed the partial attention of thirty delegates
but it was the sole occupation of only one or two of these.
Besides the nine lawyers in the convention politics included
eight business men, nine engaged in agriculture or land owning,
two in medicine, two in engineering and two in education.
This almost universal passion for politics and public life was
characteristic of the west at this time. Every lawyer was
seized with it. Every man who had attained any degree of
popularity wanted to hold office. As a rule it included the best
and most able men in a community. Politics was then an
honorable profession to which all turned even at a sacrifice.
It is academic whether these men regarded politics as a duty
or as a pleasant recreation. At all events we are certain that
very few looked upon it as a great prize except for the honor
attached to it. No man was so busy, so engaged in accumulat
ing wealth, so learned, or so able that he spurned public office.
We believe several causes brought about this admirable state
of mind. The widespread and long continued interest of the
colonies in public affairs for nearly a quarter of a century; the
internal crisis between 1783 and 1789; the relations with Eng
land and Spain in the nineties; the armed truce or masked war
with England and France during the first decade of the new
century ; the Louisiana Purchase ; the War of 1812 ; the numerous
Indian wars; the great domestic questions which arose from
1783 to 1820; all trained the American people to a consideration
of public questions. Intense interest in politics tends to create
a desire to enter public life. This is more quickly acted upon
when there is an honor instead of a stigma attached to office

Fathers of the State. 155
holding; and when the greatest opposition to overcome is
merely votes and not machines and vested interests. The
conditions in these respects were ideal in 1820 for a citizen's
participation in public life. Another favoring factor was the
then more circumscribed fields of intellectual activity. This
gave an impetus unknown today to the study of political science,
which study was, however, as intrinsically interesting and
absorbing then as it has ever been. In addition, might be
mentioned the greater relative power of the orator and con
versationalist as compared with that of the editor. The latter
was handicapped for his information and in his circulation by
the poor mail facilities. Missouri with a white population of
over 55,000 in 1820, had but five newspapers, and these were
located in four towns. Only one newspaper to supply the
news to the thousands of settlers west and north of St. Charles
and St. Louis! Only one paper to inform the territory lying
south and west of Jackson, Missouri! Today a town of 10,000
has from two to five papers, and its inhabitants take perhaps
a dozen others printed within a radios of one hundred and
fifty miles. Today no county is without its weekly edition of
local news, and many villages of less than five hundred inhabit
ants have their own press. The newspaper of 1820 was as
influential wherever it circulated as any paper is today among
its subscribers, but natural and mechanical obstacles pre
scribed its limits then within narrow bounds. The personality
of the politician — using this word in its original and better
meaning — and his ability as a speaker, were therefore enhanced.
In no profession are these qualities when highly developed
either so advantageously and widely displayed or so assiduously
cultivated as in the practice of law. And, no profession, we
believe, has so directly and so significantly influenced our
government and laws as the legal class. It is, therefore, quite
remarkable that only ten of the forty-one delegates were mem
bers of the Missouri territorial bar; and one of these was more
accurately a business man than a lawyer. Today, over fifty
per cent of the upper house members of our state legislature
are lawyers, and our state executives are as learned in law as
our attorneys-general; in 1820 less than twenty-five per cent

156 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
of the delegates who framed the first constitution of Missouri
followed that profession, and this state's first governor had
never been admitted to the bar, — as far as could be learned.
The significance, if not the explanation, of this peculiar attitude
on the part of the people of Missouri in 1820 can be appreciated
only after a consideration of the history of the Missouri terri
torial bar.
During the Spanish regime in upper Louisiana there was
no lawyer class. This was due primarily to the manner of law
interpretation that prevailed. The American occupation in
1804 immediately attracted to this district members of the
bars of many states and territories. Lawyers of ability and
prominence immigrated here from every section of the nation.
The north, central and south Atlantic commonwealths sent
representatives, as well as that country which lies between
the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River. Con
sidering the small population of upper Louisiana, the amount
of litigation was remarkable, and much of this was highly
remunerative. The hundreds of suits over the valuable Spanish
land grants proved an especially lucrative field for the legal
profession. This kind of litigation frequently involved prizes
that would have ransomed a prince, and the rewards to ad
vocates were in proportion to the value of the case. Under
such favorable circumstances it is not surprising that we find
a very large bar in Missouri during the territorial period. Nor
was this bar less noted for its ability than for its numbers. In
fact the former characteristic is more prominent and significant
than the latter. The nature of the cases, the mixed popula
tion, the previous domination and the then but slightly dimin
ished power of the Spanish law, all required a broad and acute
legal mind to win success in court. The result was a bar which
in pure, legal ability undoubtedly stood very high.^* Other
states have produced greater lawyers; many have had a larger
bar; but few states in proportion to their population have had
so many lawyers of such remarkable ability as Missouri did
from 1804 to 1820. It is hardly an exaggeration to state that
owing to the conditions named, together with the compactness
" Cf., also Bay, Bench and Bar of Missouri, pp. VI. fl; Houck, op cit.. III. 12.

Fathers of the State. 157
of the settlements in Missouri Territory, and the peculiar
organization of the courts, a lawyer of little ability could not
make a living by his profession in this district. Only lawyers
learned in the law and skilled in pleading and cross-examina
tion could survive. Therefore we find such men as these con
stituting the legal class at that time: Ezra Hunt, Henry S.
Geyer, Silas Bent, John F. Ryland, Hamilton R. Gamble,
William C. Carr, Abiel Leonard, David Todd, Mathias Mc
Girk, Robt. W. Wells, Geo. Tomkins, Thomas H. Benton,
Rufus Easton, Rufus Hemstead, Johnson Ranney, John B. C.
Lucas, Alexander Gray, Rufus Pettibone, Luke E. Lawless,
Peyton R. Hayden, Nathaniel Beverly Tucker, Joshua Barton,
Frederick Bates, David Barton, Edward Bates, Alexander
Buckner, John D. Cook, James Evans, Duff Green, John Rice
Jones, John Scott, and R. S. Thomas. It is a remarkable fact
that of these noteworthy men only the last nine were elected
delegates! Perhaps a few like Lucas had been defeated on
account of being slavery restrictionists, but, we are certain,
these formed a very small percentage of their class.^* This
together with other evidence would indicate that the people
of Missouri in 1820 preferred to have their constitution framed
by other classes of men. They did not realize that the legal
class by virtue of its ability alone wields an influence in the
field of legislation out of all proportion to its numbers, and that
in the convention or forum it has always enjoyed a preeminent
position. This influence and position of lawyers in law making
bodies have in this country been strengthened by their ability
to cooperate with other classes. And in this respect the lawyer's
most natural ally has been and still is the business man.
An eminent authority has said that at least nine-tenths
of all legislation owe their origin, directly or indirectly, to the
associated influence of the merchant, trader, and banker on
the one hand, and the lawyer on the other.^^ We are not pre
pared to examine the correctness of this statement, but, we
believe, it is well substantiated in the framing of Missouri's

" Easton had died at this time; and Hunt and Gamble had not then achieved
distinction. " Foote, Bench and Bar of the Southwest, p. 3.

158 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
first constitution. Although only eleven business men^' and
nine lawyers were elected delegates to the convention, their
influence in that body was without a serious check. In the
committees of the convention they were practically supreme.
The president of the convention was a lawyer; the legislative
committee was composed of a lawyer, a business man, and a
politician; the executive committee was composed of a lawyer,
a surveyor, and a farmer — the latter being the brother of a
lawyer; the judiciary committee was composed of three lawyers;
the select committee, which reported on the work of the three
named committees, was composed of three lawyers, and a
farmer; the committee on a bill of rights, etc., was composed
of a farmer, a business man, and a lawyer; the committee on
the schedule and banking was composed of a lawyer, a business
man, and a teacher; the revision committee, or committee on
style, and the enrollment committee were each composed of
two lawyers, and a teacher. In seven of these eight committees
the business man and the la-wyer constituted a majority of the
membership; and in the eighth these two classes had the co
operation of a surveyor whose interests were identical with
theirs.^* Of the twenty-five committee places on these eight
committees, one was held by a surveyor; three, by teachers;
three, by landed men; one, by a politician; three, by business
men; and fourteen, by lawyers.
This remarkable strength of the lawyer class is the more
significant when we realize that there were thirteen delegates
in the convention who were mainly interested in agriculture
and landholding.^* We would not be understood as stating
that on all questions that arose there was a line of division in
the convention between the lawyers and business men on the

" The foUowing delegates were engaged principaUy in business, ranging
from a tavern keeper and store-keeper to a banker and fur merchant: Baber,
Burckhartt, Chouteau, Dodge (mine operator), Emmons, Hammond, (spec
ulator, more alUed to the business than to the agricultural class). Heath, Houts,
McNair, Pratte, Eiddick.
" The members of the executive committee were Eector, a surveyor; N.
Cook, a land holder and a brother of J. Cook, the lawyer; and Evans, a lawyer.
"The foUowing delegates belonged to this class: Bettis. Boone — a sur
veyor but, we beUeve, more interested in land at this time — , Brown, Byrd, Cleaver,
N. Cook, Henry, Hutchings, Lillard, Perry, Eamsay, Ray, Wallace.

Fathers of the State. 159
one hand, and the agriculturists on the other. Such is not
true; but it is correct to say that the influence of the former
was much greater than that of the latter, and further that
Missouri's first constitution was largely the work of the former,
even though the lawyers and business men did not comprise
one-half of the delegates.
Besides the occupations named that were represented in
the convention, there were three others which were each fol
lowed by two delegates. The medical profession was followed
by Dawson and Talbott; the civil engineering, by Rector and
Sullivan; and the teaching, by Findlay and McFerron. Of
these six men McFerron and Findlay were the most active in
the convention, and achieved the least financial success in life.
Another feature of this body that attracts attention is
its cosmopolitan appearance. There were represented in the
convention seven lines of descent. The English race claimed
a majority of the delegates; the Welsh, two; the Scotch, at
least two; the Irish, at least four; the Scotch-Irish, which, we
understand, is generally distinguished by genealogists from
the Scotch, at least four; the French, two; and the German,
one.'" Even more diversified was the nativity of the members
of the convention. The slave-holding commonwealths, as one
would expect, were the birthplaces of a majority of the dele
gates. Contrary to popular opinion, Kentucky did not lead
in this respect; to Virginia was this honor given. The former
furnished eight of Missouri's State Founders; the latter, thirteen.
Standing next to Virginia and Kentucky was Maryland with
four delegates, and, what is equally at variance with accepted
notions on this point, Pennsylvania followed with three dele
gates. The place of birth of the remaining members of the
convention is as follows: Tennessee, then part of North Car
olina, two; North Carolina, two; upper Louisiana, while under
Spanish rule, two; Indiana Territory, before the organization
of the old Northwest Territory, one; New York, Vermont,

" Green and Jones, Welsh; Barton and Henry, Scotch; Hutchings, McPerron,
Eamsay, and Thomas, Irish; Cleaver, Findlay, McNair, and Talbott, Scotch-
Irish; Chouteau and Pratte, French; Burckhartt, German; and the other dele
gates, excepting several that we were unable to trace, English.

160 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
South Carolina, Wales, and Ireland, each one.'! j^. jg quite
a commentary on the wane of the French influence that only
two delegates were of French blood. Less than sixteen years
before when the first convention was held in upper Louisiana,
protesting against the act of Congress of 1804, the French
representatives were in the majority; and, if we look back four
years further to the close of the eighteenth century, we see
that race the most influential west of the Mississippi River.
We recall few instances in history where an enlightened, peace
ful, and fairly prosperous race, has ever been so ignored in gov
ernmental affairs in such a short time by any other means than
by force. Closely related to nativity is the place of one's rearing.
If in considering the latter we include the places of residence
in which the delegates had lived before coming to what is now
Missouri, there is no state that holds as prominent a position
in this respect as was met with under our discussion of places
of birth. While Virginia was the mother of thirteen delegates,
she had the exclusive control of but three of these before their
settlement in Missouri. Kentucky was the single home and
residence of only six delegates. Five members of the con
vention had been reared and had lived in Virginia and Ken
tucky; two in Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee; one in Vir
ginia and Georgia; one in Virginia and Tennessee; one in Vir
ginia and Illinois Territory; one in Virginia and Indiana Terri
tory; one in Kentucky and Indiana Territory; one in Kentucky
and Maryland; one in Kentucky, Maryland and Ohio; one in
Kentucky and upper Louisiana; three in Tennessee; two in

" Those born in Virginia were Baber, Bates, Clark, J. Cook, N. Cook, Evans,
Hammond, Hutchings, LiUard, Eamsay, Eector, Eiddick, and Scott; in Ken
tucky, Boone, Buckner, Cleaver, Green, Eay, Eeeves, SuUivan, and WaUace;
in Maryland, Burckhartt, Dawson, Talbott, Thomas; in Pennsylvania, Findlay,
McNair, and Perry; in Tennessee, Barton and Byrd; in North CaroUna, Bettis
and Brown; in upper Louisiana, Chouteau and Pratte; in Indiana Territory,
Dodge; in New York, Heath; in Vermont, Emmons; in South CaroUna,
Henry; in Ireland, McFerron; and in Wales, Jones. The birthplace of Houts
is not known. The Jackson Herald, June 24, 1820, gives the birthplaces of the
delegates as follows: Virginia, 16; Kentucky, 8; Pennsylvania, 4; Maryland, 4;
North Carolina, 3; Missouri, 2; Vermont, 1; Delaware, 1; Tennessee, 1; Ireland,
1; and Wales, 1. The total number of delegates according to that paper is forty-
two, which is not accurate. It possibly included the secretary of the convention,
but this would not correct its flgures on this point.

Fathers of the State. 161
Maryland; one in North Carolina; one in North Carolina and
South Carolina; three in Pennsylvania; one in Vermont and New
York; one in NewYork; one in Ireland; one in Wales, England,
Indiana and Illinois Territories ; one in upper Louisiana; and one
in upper Louisian and Canada.'^ On the basis of former resi
dence and former friendships thirty-six of the delegates naturally
fall into five groups. The largest number came from Mary
land, Virginia and Kentucky. These three states, closely
related in history by the ties of blood, interest, and position,
had been the birthplace and home of seventeen delegates. The
next group in the order of importance was that from Tennessee
and the Carolinas. Its membership included eight delegates,
most of whom came from eastern Tennessee. The old North
west Territory group was composed of five delegates, who came
from Ohio, Indiana Territory, and Illinois Territory. The
Pennsylvania group and the upper Louisiana group were each
composed of three delegates. Thus, instead of there having
been a large number of sources of the delegates, we find that all
the members of the convention except six can be traced to five

" The three delegates from Virginia and the year of their immigration to
Missouri were Bates (1814), Evans (1807), Eiddick (1803); from Virginia and
Kentucky, Boone (1800), Clark (1817), J. Cook (1815), N. Cook, (1799), Hutch
ings (1800); from Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, Baber (1815), Ramsay
(1817) ; from Virginia and Georgia, Hammond (1804) ; from Virginia and Tennessee,
Lillard (1817); from Virginia and Illinois Territory, Rector (1810); from Virginia
and Indiana Territory, Scott (1804); from Kentucky, Cleaver (1816), Green
(1817), Eay (1818), Eeeves (1819), Sullivan (at least as early as 1815), Wallace
(at least as early as 1818) ; from Kentucky and Indiana Territory, Buckner (1818) ;
from Kentucky and Maryland, Burckhartt (about 1815 or before) ; from Ken
tucky, Maryland, and Ohio, Thomas (1810); from Kentucky and upper Louisiana,
Dodge (1796); from Tennessee, Barton (1809), Brown (1804), Byrd (1799); from
Maryland, Dawson (1800), Talbott (at least by 1815); from North CaroUna,
Bettis (1806); from North Carolina and South CaroUna, Henry (1817); from
Pennsylvania, Findlay (1818), McNair (1804), Perry (1806); from Vermont and
New York, Emmons (1807) ; from New York, Heath (1808) ; from Ireland, McFer
ron (1802) ; from Wales, England, Indian Territory and IlUnois Territory, Jones
(1810); from upper Louisiana and Canada, Pratte (born in Ste. Genevieve).
Chouteau was born in St. Louis. The birthplace and former residence of Houts
are unknown, also the date of his arrival in Missouri. The dates given as the
years of the arrivals in upper Louisiana of the delegates are in some cases our
approximations of the exact time. We were in several instances unable to ob
tain exact information. Bach date, we believe, is, however, accurate in stating
the year in which a delegate was living in upper Louisiana or Missouri Territory.
The error, if any, is in the direction of an understatement rather than an over
statement of the length of time a delegate had been an inhabitant of this Terri
tory.
M S — 11

162 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
common sources. We think this is important in an understand
ing of the personnel of the convention. The delegates were
isolated from each other neither before nor after their immi
gration west of the Mississippi river. Nor were they strangers
to each other at either time. They had met in the market,
had been companions in the skirmish, had sat side by side in
legislative bodies, had known each other as friends or as foes
before the bar. Some were related by the bonds of marriage
and friendship, others by the ties of business and policy. Al
though their average residence in upper Louisiana was but ten
years, excluding Chouteau and Pratte, who were born in that
district, and Houts of whom we could learn very little, their
acquaintanceships stretch back into the eighteenth century.
And when they met to frame Missouri's first constitution each
knew the character as well as the reputation of many of his
colleagues. Some of the delegates were members of the same religious
denomination, but our information is too incomplete in this
respect to insure accurate generalizations. We do know, how
ever, that the following sects and religions had followers in the
convention: Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian,
and Roman Catholic. Formal religion did not play as im
portant a part in the lives of the men and women of that day
as it did later. We do not believe that even half of the dele
gates were members of any church at this time. This was
partly due, in the case of some of the delegates, to a lack of in
terest in this subject, but was more probably the result of the few,
scattered churches and ministers in Missouri Territory. In many
cases we are told the religion that was professed by a delegate's
parents, who had lived in the settled states east of the Mis
sissippi River, but nothing in regard to the religion of the dele
gate himself. In other instances we have record of the delegate
joining some religious denomination years after Missouri had
entered the Union. There was also a number of delegates who
were Masons. Alexander Buckner had been the first Grand
Master of the Grand Lodge of Indiana Territory, and had
organized the first Masonic Lodge in Missouri Territory,
"Unity Lodge" at Jackson; Benjamin Emmons, had brought

Fathers of the State. 163
the first charter for the Masonic Lodge at St. Charles; and
Thomas F. Riddick, who together with Alexander McNair,
Thomas H. Benton, Edward and Frederick Bates, William G.
Pettus and others established the first two Masonic Lodges in
St. Louis, was the first Grand Master of Missouri.
Before closing our treatment of the private lives of the
delegates we will make a few statements on what is usually
regarded as two of the most important subjects in the study
of biography, — education and economic position. The educa
tional equipment of the members of the first constitutional
convention of Missouri was an honor and an asset to that body.
Some of the delegates had received little schooling but most
of these had corrected this by a close application to books.
Only seven delegates, however, were in this unfortunate class
of self-educated men. Information along this line in the case
of seven other delegates has not been brought to light. All
the remaining twenty-six delegates had received good educa
tions and many of these, e. g., Jones, Scott, McNair, Pratte,
McFerron, Barton, Bates, Buckner and others, had received
exceptionally fine advantages either in college or under re
markably eminent men.^' The most highly educated man in
the convention, one whom we can correctly style learned, was
John Rice Jones. This high educational standard of the con
vention was naturally reflected in the work of that body. The
constitution that it framed has throughout not only a clear,
correct style but also, which is more important, it reveals itself
as the work of men who were liberal enough to compromise. A
constitution of this character is usually insured a longer life
than one framed by a body of illiberal even though powerful
men. Another element of strength in the convention was the
economic stability of most of its members. All except four
of the delegates either enjoyed large incomes from their profession
and business, or were possessed of considerable property, prin
cipally in land. Even these four, whom we have excepted,

" Baber, Chouteau, Clark, Dodge, Hutchings, Eamsay, and WaUace had
received little schooling or were self-educated. We could not obtain Information
in this line relating to Brown. Burckhartt, Byrd, Cleaver, N. Cook. LiUard, Sul
livan, and Perry.

164 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
were not penniless, but were in only fair circumstances com
pared to the other delegates. It is interesting to note that
two of these four delegates were the only school teachers in the
convention, which perhaps explains their economic situation;
one was a politician, an even less lucrative office then than now;
and one was a small business man who soon developed into a
politician and found more wealth in holding public office than
in selling groceries.'* Fourteen of the delegates were among
the wealthiest men in the territory, and two of these, Jones and
Pratte, probably had few if any equals in this respect.'* The
lawyers and surveyors in the Convention had large incomes
as their services were of a high grade and were well remunerated.
The business class in the convention was also fortunate in this
respect, which was due to the large profits that the successful
trader and merchant made on his furs and wares, and to the
immense gains that accrued to a progressive mine operator.
The agricultural class did not, perhaps, enjoy so large a net
income as either of the three classes named, but in property it
usually surpassed them. Considering the low average age of
the delegates, it is surprising that so many were men of means,
and most of them were also self-made men. The average age
of these delegates was forty-one years. Only four were sixty
years old or over — Hammond, who was sixty- three years;
Henry, eighty-four years; Jones, sixty-one years; and Lillard,
sixty years. The remaining thirty-seven delegates ranged in
age between thirty-one and fifty-nine years except five or six
who were thirty years or younger, — Baber, Bates, Clark, J.
Cook, Houts (?), and Green. Today it would be almost im
possible to elect in any state forty-one of the leading men of
that commonwealth whose average age is as low and whose
economic position is as high as were the men who framed Mis-

" McFerron and Findlay were teachers; Clark, a poUtician; and Baber a
country merchant. Baber later held several pubUc offices and for nearly thirty
years was connected with the state auditor's department. He became wealthy;
and the story is told that at times he would light his cigar with paper currency
to show in what slight regard he held money.
" The fourteen delegates who were wealthy were Boone, Brown, Byrd,
Chouteau, N. Cook, Dodge, Hammond, Henry, LiUard, Perry, Eamsay, and
Eiddick. Dodge had, however, lost much of his wealth, but later recovered it
in Wisconsin Territory.

Fathers of the State. 165
souri's first constitution. The reason for such a difference
existing is not slow in presenting itself. In the first place,
never in the history of this nation, not even excepting the case
of California, has such a wealth of natural resources and fertile
soil been thrown open to settlement and exploitation as upper
Louisiana offered the American settler from 1790 to 1820.
Therefore the fearless, shrewd, and energetic young men amassed
fortunes in a decade or two. In the second place, the absence
of specialization permitted men to enter active life earlier. And
even where special training and study were required as in the
case of law and engineering, a year or two of application was
sufficient to enable one to be admitted to active work at the
bar or in the field. The unlimited opportunities that this rich
territory offered and the comparative absence of the specialist
were, we believe, the main reasons for the delegates averaging
low in age and high in wealth. We would not be understood
as stating that a wealthy class framed Missouri's first consti
tution, for this is not true. The delegates were all men of more
or less property and some were very wealthy, but they were
essentially representatives of the people both by virtue of elec
tion and even more truly by reason of birth, upbringing and
industry.

CHAPTER VI.
LABORS OF THE CONVENTION.
On June 12th, 1820, in accordance with the fourth section
of the Missouri Enabling Act of March 6, 1820, there assembled
in St. Louis the delegates that had been elected to Missouri's
first constitutional convention.! From that date to July 19th,
a period of thirty-eight days, these constitution framers met
in daily session, except on the five Sundays intervening and on
the Fourth of July. The convention thus accomplished its
purpose and completed its labors in thirty-two days, or in less
than one-half the time necessary for a regular session of a state
legislature.^ The assembling place of the convention was in
the dining room of Bennett's "Mansion House Hotel," ' and the
thirty-eight delegates that were present on the first day, having
produced their credentials, were sworn, and took their seats.*

1 Journal, p. 3. Throughout this and the succeeding chapter foot-note
references to the Journal of the convention will be indicated by "J."
' On thirteen days the convention assembled at 9 A. M., on one day at 10
A. M., and on the last day at 12 A. M. On three days the Journal does not give
the hour of meeting. The convention also assembled in the afternoon. See
Mo. Intell, July 1, 1820.
> This building was erected in 1816 by Gen. Wm. V. Rector, United States
Surveyor-General for Illinois and Missouri, for his office and residence, and was
situated on the north-east corner of Third and Vine streets. In 1819 it was en
larged to serve as a hotel for Wm. Bennett, who opened house during the summer
of that year. From a fine cut of the old Mansion House in Billon, op. cit., p.
397. it appears to have been a large, three-story brick structure. For many
years it was used as a hotel and during that time was the scene of many inter
esting and noteworthy incidents. Theatrical companies performed in the large
dining room, and during the early State period it was the principal ball-room of
St. Louis. Later it was caUed the "Denver House" and was sometimes spoken
of as the "City Hotel." Between 1880 and 1888 It was removed to make way
for a large business house. Its site would now be at the north-east corner of
Third and E streets. (Mo. Intell, June 24, 1820; Billon, op. cil, pp. 106, 397f;
Darby, Recollections, p. 28; Houck, op. cit.. III. 249. 256.
'J., p. 3. Dodge appeared on June 13; Findlay on June 15; and Scott, on
June 16. (IMd., pp. 5, 9, 10.) The following were also admitted to a seat within
the haU of the convention : the governor, secretary, and judges of the superior
and circtiit courts of Missouri Territory (IMd., p. 12); Mr. Monroe, brother of
and former private secretary to the President of the United States; Mr. Strother,
a former member of Congress (idem.); and Nathaniel B. Tucker, a former judge
of the circuit court (ibid., p. 23.). The proceedings of the convention appear
(166)

"MANSION HOUSE" HOTEL
Where thc First Constitutional Convention of Missouri met. Courtesy of
Hon. Cornelius Roach.

^^:9~^'
ff>«^""U7 <Ti, !!, IJ Ilf tr B- -' -"O .
i if ir 1 i i! fl !h i s I
 ill li; s: III III Sl BI "

THE "MLSSOURI HOTEL"
Where the First State Legislature of Missouri met. Courteay of Hon. Cornelius Roach

728.34 -106

Labors of the Convention. 167
The Journal of the convention does not record any tem
porary organization, but other accounts of the proceedings of
that body reveal the election of Samuel Hammond and Thomas
F. Riddick, both delegates, as president and secretary pro
tempore.^ Final organization was then effected by the election
of a permanent president, a secretary and a door-keeper. David
Barton was chosen to the former office by a large majority vote ;
William G. Pettus was elected secretary; and George W. Fer
guson, door-keeper.^
Immediately following the permanent organization of the
convention, Judge Thomas submitted a resolution, that was
adopted, which required each delegate to take an oath before
some magistrate of the Territory to support the Constitution
of the United States, and also an oath to faithfully discharge
the duties of his office.' The oaths having been administered
by the Hon. Silas Bent, a judge of the superior court, a resolu
tion was submitted by John D. Cook, of Ste. Genevieve, which
stated that it was then expedient to form a constitution and
state government for the people of Missouri Territory within
the boundaries set forth in the enabling act of Congress.* This
very important resolution was unanimously adopted by the
convention. Considering the strong frontier sentiment that
up to May, 1820, had favored a new election and a fairer ap
portionment of delegates, this vote is remarkable. The Boone's
Lick people had been protesting for months against the small
number of representatives apportioned their and the Salt
River districts, and they had persistently advocated a new
election of delegates and a new convention based on a more

to have been of a semi-secret nature; the pubUc was excluded from the sessions
but some of the delegates kept their constituents informed of the general business
transacted. I Jackson Herald, June 24, 1820; Scharf, op. cil, I. 564f.
• i/. , pp. 3f . The voting was by baUot and resulted as foUows : for president —
David Barton, 28 votes, Richard S. Thomas. 6, John Rice Jones, 3; for secretary —
WUliam G. Pettus, 21 votes, Archibald Gamble, 12, Thompson Douglass, 3,
Joseph V. Gamier, 2; and for door-keeper — George W. Ferguson, 35 votes, Ed
ward Horrocks, 2. None of the candidates for secretary or door-keeper was
a delegate. ' IMd., p. 4. Cf. Jameson, Const. Convs., pp. 280fl. This was the flrst
resolution recorded in the Journal and was submitted on June 12th.
'Ibid., p. 4.

168 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
just basis of representation.' It speaks well for the wisdom
and honor of these western and northern men that, although
they could have opposed this measure with much justice on
their side, they choose to yield their cause in behalf of the com
mon welfare of the people.^"
Having decided to form a constitution, the convention at
once began its labors. This work was accomplished by com
mittees, which reported to the convention, and divides itself
into legislative and administrative acts. The former activity
is the more important, but the latter is also significant and in
teresting. We shall first consider the administrative and rou
tine labors of the convention.
On the first day of the convention a committee was ap
pointed to draft rules for the government of that body.^* On
the following day this committee submitted a short report,
consisting of twenty-one sections and containing about nine
hundred words, which was divided into four parts, "The Duties
Of The President," "Of Decorum In Debate," "Duties Of
The Secretary," and "Duties Of The Door-Keeper." This
report was adopted by the convention without debate or op
position.'^ Brevity, courtesy and common sense, are its dis
tinguishing features.'^ The President of the convention was

• Cf. supra, chapter II; Mo. Intell, June 24. 1820.
¦• The action of the Missouri convention on this point presents a striking
contrast to that of the Louisiana constitutional convention of 1811. The latter
met on November 4. 1811. and after electing a temporary president, being unable
to eflect a permanent organization, adjourned to the 18th instant. On re-
assembUng and after the election of permanent offlcers, the great question of
"State or no State?" commanded the attention of all the delegates. Some favored
a State, others opposed it. One thought that the people were not instructed in
the principles of freedom. Some of the newspaper writers in that Territory
declared that the doctrines of Uberty and equality were "heresy" and "theoretical
stuff," and that property shoiUd be the basis for granting the right of suffrage.
On taking the vote on this question, thirty-five delegates favored a State, seven
opposed it. (Fortier, Address, in Pub. of La. Hist. Soc, VI. 40f.
¦' J., p. 4. Thomas, Emmons, Jones, Cook of Madison and Riddick com
posed this committee. Two of these were lawyers; two, business men; and one,
a landowner, was a brother of a lawyer.
¦' Ibid., pp. 5fl. Fifty copies were ordered printed.
" A comparison of these rules with those governing the United States House
of Representatives at that time shows that the former are simply an epitome
of those essential features of the latter that are applicable to a convention. In
many sections the language of the two are identical except that in the place of
the words "House," "Speaker" and "Clerk," which appear in the former, the

Labors of the Convention. 169
given the great power of appointing all committees, and at no
time during the session of that body was this rule changed.
As the presiding officer. Barton seems to have given satisfaction
to all the delegates; on the last day of the convention a resolu
tion was unanimously adopted tendering him the thanks of
the members of that body for the able and faithful discharge
of his duty as president. A similar resolution of thanks was
at the same time passed regarding the work of Pettus for the
faithful and correct manner in which he had served as secretary."
A resolution was then adopted directing that the secretary
make up the Journal of the convention under the direction of
the president.'^ This resolution brings to our attention what
we regard as one of the most serious criticisms that can be
urged against the convention and its officers. We advance
this criticism not only for the sake of historical accuracy but,
we believe, "The world's memory must be kept alive or we
shall never see an end of its old mistakes." '^
The minutes recorded of the proceedings of a legislative
body, and especially of a constitutional convention, can never
be too detailed. The very interpretation of a phrase or a
clause in a constitution frequently involves a painstaking study
of those debates that were held over it by its framers. Not
only to the historian, the lawyer, the judge, and to all posterity,
is such a detailed account important, but it is equally valuable
in enabling contemporaries and the people at large to pass
unbiased judgment on the acts of those men whom they have
elected to so important a trust. The proceedings of all de-

words "Convention." "President" and "Secretary," are respectively substituted
in the latter. Cf. Hinds, Rules of the House of Rep. 61st Cong., pp. 303-474.
(Govt. Prtg. Offlce, Washington, 1910.)
" J., p. 48. It is reported that Pettus worked aU night of the 18th of July,
copying ou parchment the enroUed constitution. From the minutes of the
Journal, however, it seems that Pettus had at least two nights and one day to
do this work. (Cf. J., p. 46f.) It is probable that other duties prevented him
from accomplishing this until the last minute. Findlay, chairman of the enroU-
ment committee, in reporting to the convention the result of his examination of
Pettus' work, said that never in his long experience as a printer had he seen such
beautiful and accurate copying, that there was not an interlineation or mispeUed
word, and that not a "t" was uncrossed or an "1" undotted, throughout the
manuscript. (Scharf, op. cil, I. 563f; Houck, op. cil. III. 249f. M. 5.)
"J., p. 48.
" Reported from speech of President Woodrow Wilson.

170 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Hberative bodies and, wherever politic, of administrative
boards, should be recorded in the clearest and most minute
detail. The cost of printing and clerk hire is too childish an
objection to deserve consideration.
Brevity, condensation and omission of detail, is in itself
one of the most essential characteristics of a strong, enduring
and well-balanced constitution; this quality is, on the other
hand, the most vital of all defects in any journal that purports
to record the complete history of how a constitution was framed.
The Missouri constitution of 1820 is commendable in covering
only eighteen and a half printed octavo pages; the journal of
the Missouri constitutional convention of 1820 is ridiculously
defective in being a pamphlet of forty-eight printed pages, of
which only thirty-four contain information on the constitution. ''
From an analysis of the newspaper reports of this convention
we are well within the bounds of moderation in stating that
the four contests in that body over the questions of salaries for
state officers, of the basis of representation in the state senate,
of the location of the permanent seat of the state government,
and of the state bank, alone, could not have been fully described
in a journal of less than three hundred pages. Fundamental
as is this defect of brevity in the record that was kept of Mis
souri's first constitutional convention, the Journal would still
be acceptable if it possessed the merits of clearness and ac
curacy. But a hasty examination shows it is lacking in the
former quality, and a careful study compromises it in the
latter.!* The Journal's account of the convention's printing con
tracts is significantly illustrative of these defects, and, as those
contracts were purely administrative acts, a discussion of
them is appropriate here. The convention's printing was of
" The St. Louis edition of 1820 of the constitution is a smaU size pamphlet,
three and a half by flve and three-fourths inches, and contains forty pages, of
which thirty are devoted to the constitution; the Washington edition, printed
the same year, is a fuU size octavo pamphlet and contains twenty-flve pages, of
which eighteen and a half are devoted to the constitution.
'• Our criticism of brevity and obscurity is not conflned to the Journal of
this convention; it is applicable to the Journal of the Illinois constitutional con
vention of 1818. (Cf. same as reprinted in the Journal of the III. State Hist.
Soc, VI. No. 3.)

Labors of the Convention. 171
two kinds, miscellaneous job work and the printing of the
constitution and journal. All bids were to be made to a
committee, composed of Greene, Rector and Boone; final
decision on same was retained by the convention." This
committee first considered bids for the job work, and having
requested and received one from Henry and Company of St.
Louis recommended the acceptance of that firm's offer. The
convention accordingly gave the contract to Henry and Com
pany.^" This far the Journal is clear and perhaps accurate,
although there were probably some discussion and an aye and
and nay vote taken on this matter, both of which the Journal
fails to record. A criticism does, however, plainly rest against
the printing committee in not having also asked for a bid from
the rival printing firm in St. Louis, or if it did this, in not having
presented two bids — for certainly the old, established firm of
Joseph Charless' could and would have competed with that of
Henry and Benton's."
On the day following the letting of the job work, the con
vention, after much discussion, resolved by a very close division
vote to have printed twelve hundred copies of the constitution
and of the journal. This resolution was bitterly contested and
thoroughly aroused the convention, but the Journal is sin
gularly silent on this phase of the affair.^^ Two days later, on
Saturday, June 17, according to the Journal, the printing
committee submitted to the convention propositions of Henry
and Company for printing twelve hundred copies of the con
stitution and of the journal, and also submitted a resolution
accepting these propositions. The Journal then briefly states

"J., p. 5.
'• IMd., pp. 7f.
" Henry and Co. printed the St. Louis Enquirer and was controlled by Isaac
N. Henry and Thomas H. Benton. Joseph Charless, editor and owner of the
Missouri Gazette, was hated by many of the delegates and especiaUy by Green
and other active politicians of Missouri.
" See Journal, p. 9, for its account of the proceedings on June 15th. Our
account is taken from a letter of the St; Louis correspondent of the Missouri
Intelligencer. (Mo. Intell, June 24, 1820.) Green, Cook of Ste. Genevieve, and
Findlay favored the resolution; Thomas wanted only 300 copies printed; and
Heath opposed the resolution. The writer says that some excitement, u-regular
discussion, and long speeches followed the introduction of the resolution. Two
important votes were taken and each showed 20 ayes and 18 nays.

172 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
that, after a motion to table this resolution had been negatived,
the resolution itself was adopted.^' Green, chairman of the
printing committee, in a letter "To The Voters Of Howard
County" dated two months later, said that his committee had
also submitted the propositions to Charless for printing, and
that the convention had almost unanimously accepted those
of Henry and Company. ^^ Either the Journal is inaccurate
or Green is mistaken; we are inclined to think that both trimmed.
On the following Monday, June 19, according to the Journal,
Charless submitted proposals for printing the constitution and
the journal, but on motion of Findlay these were ordered to be
laid on the table.^^ Charless' bids were just one-fifth those of
Henry and Company; this interesting bit of information is not,
however, given in the Journal; we obtained it from the files of
the Missouri Gazette, August 2 and 9, and of the Missouri In
telligencer, July 1 and August 19.^^ To maintain that the

" Journal p. 10. Ramsay made the motion to table the resolution.
¦< Mo. Intell, August 19, 1820.
"J., p. 11.
" The bid of Henry and Company for printing twelve hundred copies of the
constitution was $100.00; that of Charless. $20.00. The cost of printing twelve
hundred copies of the journal was to be done at the same rate, in proportion to
the extent of the work. The St. Louis correspondent of the Mo. Intell, July 1.
1820. states that Charless' bid was presented June 19. and that it was placed
low. at 1/5 a fair price, in order to raise "a false clamour among the people."
He also states that the printing contract had been let on June 17, and that Charless,
knowing this, sought to embaress the convention without running any risk of
being himself embarressed. Charless replied to this correspondent in two edito
rials which appeared in the Mo. Gazette, Aug. 2 and 9, 1820. He stated that the
printing committee had never requested bids from him; that he had not known
of the appointment of this committee until after it had presented the proposals
of Henry and Co.; that when his proposals were handed to the committee by
Boone, who had received them from some member. Green was displeased and wished
to know who had informed old Charless; that at that time the contract had not
yet been made and was still under discussion; that notwithstanding the fact that
his bid was only one-fifth that of Henry and Co., the contract was awarded the
latter, on the recommendation of the committee; and that he had his bid again
presented to the convention by a member, but it was tabled. Charless also
explained how he could afford to print twelve hundred copies of the constitution
for $20.00 and still make a profit; all the newspapers would print the constitution,
hence no new labor of composition would be required to print it for the convention;
the only extra expense in printing twelve hundred copies would be the foUowing —
paper, $6.25, press work, $4.00, folding, stitching, covering, and coloring, one
day for a boy, $1.50, and colored paper for covering, $1.25 — aU of which would
amount to $13.00, thus leaving a, profit of $7.00 on his $20.00 bid. Charless
further accused Green and the convention of giving Henry and Co. at least $1,500
for aU the printing, which he, Charless, would gladly have done for $300.00. He

Labors of the Convention. 173
matter is unimportant and did not warrant recording, is to lay
the Journal open to the severe criticism of having covered one
and one-half pages of its scanty forty-eight pages with extraneous
minutes on the printing by Henry and Company. We cannot,
however, see how the $20.00 bid of Charless was in any respect
less important than the $100.00 bid of Henry and Company."
concluded his arraignment with these biting words: "It is part of the question
of high salaries — no one shall do any thing for the public except he will take three
times as much as he ought — No one shaU serve the pubUc unless he plucks the goose
as much as possible."
Green in his race for representative from Howard county in 1820, was at
tacked by his enemies for this Uttle piece of politics of his at St. Louis, and he
must have feared the effect of the charges. For on August 19th, there appears
in the Mo. Intell. a letter of his addressed "To The Voters Of Howard County."
which attempts to reply to the statements of Charless and others. A hasty
examination of this letter clears both Green and the Convention of aU criticisms
regarding the convention's printing and further places Charless in the hole for
misstatements and for playing low poUtics: a careful analysis of this epistle, a
comparison with it of the Journal, of the editorials of Charless, and of the writings
of the St. Louis correspondent of the Mo. Intell, and an appreciation of the fact
that it was an attempt to answer certain direct and speciflc charges, convict
Green, some members of the convention, and the Journal of wilful and conscious
irregularities in this matter. The voters of Howard county also possibly shared
this latter conclusion as Green was very decisively defeated at the August election.
" The convention later decided that the constitution be translated into the
French language, and that 300 copies thereof be distributed for the use of the
French inhabitants. Pratte, Chouteau, and Riddick were appointed to super
vise this work. (Journal, p. 46.)
It was flrst decided to dispose of the 1,200 printed copies of the constitution
that were in English as follows: 380 copies were to be deposited in the archives
of the state, subject to the future disposition of the legislature; and 20 copies
were to be given to each delegate, for the use of his constituents. (Mo. Intell,
June 24, 1820.) This was changed by a resolution, introduced by Bates, which
provided that the President of the United States, the respective heads of the
departments of the Federal Government, the chief executive of each state and
territory, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the
Senate of Congress, each receive one copy of the constitution, that 100 copies of
the constitution and the journal be deposited in the offlce of the Secretary of
State of Missouri, and that the remaining copies of both be distributed among
the delegates. (Journal, p. 47.)
We have seen only one copy of the original edition of the constitution printed
in St. Louis, and one copy that was printed in Washington (1820). These are
both in the State Hist. Soc. of Mo. We have never seen an original of the Journal
and in our work used a photo-facsimile reprint made in 1905 by the Statute Law
Book Company, Washington, D. C.
The flnal superintendence of the printing of the constitution was placed in
the hands of Findlay. (Journal, p. 47f.) On the last page of the St. Louis
edition of the constitution is found the certiflcation of J. S. Findlay, under date
of St. Louis, Aug. 3, 1820, declaring that the constitution and "Ordinance" as
printed agreed with the original roU. On the last page of the Washington edition
is found a similar certiflcation by David Barton, under date of St. Louis. September
27, 1820.

174 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
The Journal's record of the printing contracts is singular,
but its account of the resolution that provided for the pay of
the members and officers of the convention, is unique. The
latter subject, although not considered until late in the session,
secured the attention of the delegates on seven days.''* The
Journal contains a copy of the original resolution, presented
by Ramsay, on this matter; gives the names of the members of
the committee appointed to report on this resolution ; and states
that the committee submitted this resolution as an ordinance,
thus necessitating honoring it with the signatures of the president
and secretary of the convention. The Journal further informs
us that the ordinance after two readings was committed to the
committee of the whole, was then reported with amendments to
the convention, was agreed to and ordered to be engrossed for
a third reading, was again agreed to by a division vote,— the
individual ayes and nays being given — , was reported on favor
ably by the committee on enrollments, and was finally signed
by Barton and Pettus. We would logically expect that since
so much pains was taken to relate the complete story of this
simple administrative act, the Journal would inform us what
its core was, i. e., what pay the president, the secretary, the
doorkeeper, and the delegates received per diem for their services
and what mileage was allowed them. Or, if the Journal did
not, then surely this ordinance, which was raised by the con
vention to the dignity and authority of a fundamental law,
would have found a place at the end of the pamphlet that
contains the constitution, the ordinance of acceptance of the
conditions imposed by Congress, and the certification of Findlay
that these two documents had been correctly printed. But
neither pamphlet contains the slightest hint of the compensa
tion received by the officers and members of this convention.
We do not, therefore, conclude that the compensation ordinance
necessarily allowed exorbitant per diem salaries and mileage;
we do, however, criticise the Journal, i. e., Pettus and his director.
Barton, for recording this ordinance so minutely and finally
letting the people of Missouri hold the bag.

"Journal, pp. 30f., 33, 38, 42fl., 47f.

Labors of the Convention. 175
This ordinance also provided for other expenses of the con
vention.^' It is impossible to ascertain what all these other
expenditures were, but it is certain that they included printing
bills, contingent expenses of the secretary, and furniture and
rent accounts. We estimate that this ordinance carried an
appropriation of about $8,800.00.'" This amount represents
practically the total cost to the people of Missouri of their
first constitutional convention.^' As no criticism of this ex
pense is met with in the newspapers of that day, we may con
clude that the inhabitants of the new State were willing to pay
so low a bill. Compared with the cost of even the first session
of the first General Assembly of Missouri, it was a very small
expenditure. In fact Missourians paid about three times as
much for their first volume of session laws as they did for their
first constitution.'^

'• Ibid., p. 48.
" The compensation aUowed the delegates was probably no higher than
that given to the members of the flrst state General Assembly of Missouri at
its first session, since both the convention and that legislature had unUmited
legal power over this subject. (Cf. Mo. Const., 1820, Schedule, sec. 6. The
members of the Missouri constitutional convention of 1845 and 1875 received
the same compensation as was aUowed members of the legislature. See Laws
of Mo., 12th G. A., 1st sess., pp. 26f., act of Feb. 27, 1843; act of March 25, 1874,
sec. 4, in Const, of Mo. 1865, compiled by McGrath, 1875, pp. 48fl., bound in
"Missouri Constitutions 1845-1909.") The latter body allowed each of its two
presiding officers and of its two clerks flve doUars a day, and each member of
both houses four doUars a day and mUeage at the rate of three doUars for every
twenty-five miles in coming to and returning from the session. It consisted of
fourteen senators and forty-three representatives, a total of flfty-seven members,
was in working session about two and a fourth times as long as the convention,
and appropriated twenty-flve thousand dollars for salaries and mileage of its
members and twelve hundred dollars for printing. If the convention allowed
its members a similar per diem salary and the same rate of mileage, then these
two items in the convention's budget amounted to approximately $8,000.00.
The printing bill of the convention was, we believe, about $500.00. (Cf., the
Journal pp. 8, 10 and the letter of Green in the Mo. Intell, August 19, 1820.
We cannot accept Charless' statement that the total printing bill would be about
$1,500.00; according to contract, it could not have been over $500.00.) The ex
pense for furniture was possibly $100.00, and the secretary's contingent bill was
$26.25 (Scharf, op. cit., I. 536). The rent of the dining haU and two rooms in
Bennett's Hotel was $30.00 a week or about $165.00 for the thirty-eight days.
(Journal pp. 4f. The two rooms were probably used by the convention as com
mittee rooms.) This makes a total expense of $8,791.25, which, we believe, is
a close approximation.
" It does not, however, include the expense incident to the election of the
delegates. "Laws of Mo. 1820, 1st G. A., 1st sess., chap. 17, pp. 34f.; chap. 45, pp. 82f.
In pursuing this study of Missouri's flrst constitutional convention and while
examining to some extent the other constitutional conventions and constitutions

176 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
This concludes our consideration of the administrative
and miscellaneous acts of the convention. The few that have
not been discussed are either of slight interest and importance,
or their purpose is not clear.''
We shall now consider the legislative work of the con
vention. This work consisted of drafting and adopting two
organic laws — an ordinance accepting the five propositions
and the two provisions that were set forth in the sixth section
of Missouri's Enabling Act, and a constitution, which governed
the people of this state for nearly forty-five years. Both
became binding on the people of Missouri through the mandate
of the convention; neither was ever submitted to a popular
vote. Contrary to current opinion, however, and even to the
statements of some scholars, there is, we believe, no obvious
naturalness or necessary conformity to the spirit of the times

of this and other states, we have frequently been confronted with questions that
involved comparisons of constitutional law and ordinary or session law, and of
constitutional conventions and ordinary legislative bodies. First necessity and
finaUy interest have directed our attention to this phase of our subject, and we
hope to be pardoned for the foUowing extraneous remarks: Are constitutions more
easily framed than ordinary laws? If so, is this owing to the abler men in con
stitutional conventions; to the absence of veto and constitutional Umitations,
except those in the United States constitution; to the single house plan of organ
ization; or to the smaller membership? If not, why does it take less time to draft
constitutions than session laws, for it is a fact that Missouri's flrst constitutional
convention was in session only thirty-eight days of which only thirty-two were
working days; that this State's second convention, 1845-1846, met fifty-eight days,
of which not more than forty-eight were working days ; and that the last con
vention, 1875, met eighty-nine days, of which only seventy-six were working
days? Is not this celerity in drafting constitutions due to the same factors that
serve to explain the simplicity and ease of framing constitutions?
" On June 19, McFerron submitted a resolution providing for the appoint
ment of a committee to draft a memorial to Congress in behalf of certain persons
claiming preemption rights. This was supported by Thomas and Buckner;
and opposed by Bates and Evans on the ground that it did not faU within the powers
and duties of the convention. It was negatived. (Journal, p. 11; Mo. Intell,
July 1, 1820.)
On June 27, Jones, Talbot and Chouteau, were appointed on a committee
to obtain from the Territorial Auditor a statement of the taxes assessed on and
paid by the counties of Missouri Territory into the Territorial Treasury for 1817,
1818, and 1819. (Journal, p. 14.) This committee reported on July 1, but it is
not known what this report contained. (Ibid., p. 19.) The purpose of the con
vention was undoubtedly to obtain a knowledge of the state's revenue in order,
thereby, to estimate accordingly the salaries of the new state officials.
On July 5, a committee was appointed, composed of Jones, Rector and
WaUace, to ascertain the quantity of Missouri land sold by the United States.
This committee reported on the Sth instant, but its report is not given. (Ibid.,
pp. 25, 29.)

Labors of the Convention. Ill
in the refusal of Missouri's first constitutional convention to
submit the fruits of its labors to the people.
Of the twenty-four state constitutions in force in 1820,
six had been submitted, and one of these was in the south.'*
From 1775 to 1820 inclusive, there had assembled forty-two
conventions, state and national, that had either framed or
amended constitutions. Of this forty-two conventions, fifteen
had submitted their work to the people or to their representa
tives, twenty-seven had not. If the purely revolutionary
bodies of 1775 and 1776 are eliminated, the number of sub
mitting conventions remains fifteen but the number of non-
submitting conventions is reduced to seventeen.'^ Moreover,
of all the constitutions and constitutional revisions made be
tween 1820 and 1830 inclusive, Missouri's was the only one that
was not submitted to the people.'* From these generalizations
alone, it seems logical to conclude that the principle of sub
mitting constitutions to the people or their representatives,
was firmly established in the United States from the very in
ception of our government. Although down to 1820 the non-
submitting convention was slightly the stronger of the two in
the total number of precedents, not one of these non-submitting
conventions was as influential, as an historical example, as the
submitting convention of 1787 that framed the Federal Con
stitution. Moreover, during the decade from 1820 to 1830, the
relation of the number of submitting conventions to the number
of non-submitting ones, was as five to one. Why, then, did
the Missouri convention of 1820 follow the non-submitting

"Conn. (1818); Me. (1819); Mass. (1780); Miss. (1817); N. H. (1791); and
Vt. (1792. 1820). See Jameson, Const. Convs., pp. 496fl., and Appendix B, pp.
643fl. "These submitting conventions were: Continental Congress (1775-81);
Federal Convention (1787); Ga. (1788); Me. (1819); Mass. (1778, 1779, 1780,
1820); Miss. (1817); N. H. (1778, 1781, 1791); Vt. (1785, 1792, 1820).
The non-submitting conventions were: Ala. (1819); Del. (1792); Del.,
Ga., Md.. N. J., N. Y.. N. C, Pa., and Va. (1776); Ga. (1795, 1798); IU. (1818);
Ind. (1816); Ky. (1792, 1799); La. (1811); Mo. (1820); N. H. (1775); N. Y. (1801);
O. (1802); Pa. (1789); S. C. (1775, 1778, 1790); Tenn. (1796); Vt. (1777).
The failure of the revolutionary conventions of 1775 and 1776 to submit
their labors to a popular vote, was probably due to the lack of time and to a fear
of a large adverse vote from the Tories in many of the colonies.
¦¦Mo. (1820); Mass. (1820); N. Y. (1821); R. I. (1824); Va. (1829); Vt.
(1820, 1827). IMd,
M S— 12

178 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
class, if the principal of submission had been so firmly estab
lished in our political system? We believe that there was a
number of influences operating in Missouri against submission:
there was no demand on the part of the people for such a refer
endum or adoption ; the people of Missouri Territory wanted an
immediate state government without further delay; the dele
gates possessed the confidence of their constituents; the con
stitution was generally acceptable; submitting conventions
were then the exception in the south ; and finally, the convention
itself was undoubtedly opposed to such a course. Again it is
probable that had the constitution and the ordinance of ac
ceptance been submitted to a popular vote, both would have
been adopted by overwhelming majorities. The former would
have had little opposition: the latter by its very nature would
have received the support of all. It may not be altogether
superfluous to add that the Enabling Act by not requiring the
submission of these two laws to the people and by not even
implying such submission, was possibly an influence in itself
against such a course.
The ordinance of acceptance is based almost wholly on the
sixth section of the Missouri enabling act of March 6, 1820.
As this act has been considered," we will not again analyze it.
It will be recalled that section six of this act set forth five
propositions or five proposed United States donations to the
new State, for the free acceptance or rejection by the convention.
If accepted, these propositions were to be binding upon the
national government, but they were conditioned upon two
provisos: the convention was to provide by an ordinance,
irrevocable without the consent of the United States, (1) that
all public lands sold in Missouri by the United States after
January 1, 1821, were to be free for five years after date of sale
from all state, county and township taxes; and (2) that bounty
lands, granted for military services during the war of 1812,
were to be similarly exempt from taxes for three years from
date of the patents providing these lands were held by the
patentees or by their heirs.

" See supra, chap, 11. For a copy of the ordinance, see Appendix IV.

Labors of the Convention. 179
On the third day of the session of the convention, a com
mittee was appointed to consider the expediency of accepting
or rejecting these five propositions and two provisos.'* Two
days later, this committee made its report, which was favorable
towards accepting the propositions and provisos of Congress,
and submitted the draft of an ordinance relating to these sub
jects. Both the report and the ordinance were unanimously
accepted by the convention, and on June 17th the ordinance,
after a second reading, was committed to a committee of the
whole house." While before this committee the ordinance
received considerable attention.*" Scott at once introduced a
substitute ordinance, in which were recited all the conditions
contained in the act of Congress and declaring the assent of the
convention thereto. This substitute included everything that
was contained in the original ordinance, i. e,, those provisions
that composed the sixth section of the Enabling Act, and also
enumerated and assented to those conditions that were set
forth in the second and the fourth sections of the act of Con
gress. Scott's contention was that this ordinance should
assent not only to the five propositions and to the two con
ditions in the sixth section but also to those conditions in the
second and fourth sections. Heath, chairman of the committee
that framed the original ordinance, favored the substitute so
far as it was based on the sixth section, but opposed those
clauses that were founded on the conditions in the second and
fourth sections of the enabling act. Heath objected to including
in the ordinance anything relating to the free and common
navigation of rivers or to the equal taxation of the lands of
non-residents and residents. Buckner also took this position,
and declared that the point of taxation was one which involved
Missouri's sovereignty and over which Congress had no power
to dictate. In a very able speech Scott defended the two

" Journal, pp. 7f. Heath, Ray and Buckner were appointed on this com
mittee. " IMd., pp. 9ff. The ordinance reported by this committee is practically
the same as that part of the one flnaUy adopted which begins with the words,
"Now, this convention, for and in behalf of the people" etc., and which closes
with the words "from and after the date of the patents respectively."
" Mo. Intell, July 1, 1820. The ordinance was discussed all Monday after
noon, June 19th.

180 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
points objected to by Heath and Buckner. He appealed to
the convention's sense of justice on the taxation proviso, de
fending this proviso with many precedents drawn from Ameri
can state history, and urged its inclusion in the ordinance from
the standpoint of policy. Bates, in a speech of considerable
length, opposed the additional provisos in Scott's substitute
and especially the one that related to taxation. He said that
he regarded Scott's historical examples as being inapplicable
in this case, that he would never consent to purchase Missouri's
admission into the Union at the price of her relinquishing so
important an attribute of state sovereignty, and that he not
only favored placing this power in the hands of the Missouri
legislature but thought that it might be well for that body to
actually impose a higher tax on non-resident than on resident
land-holders. Bates concluded by offering the following amend
ment to the first section of the substitute, which section, we
believe, contained the provisos relating to the free and common
navigation of Missouri rivers:*^ "provided that Congress be
requested so to modify the third proposition as to allow the
whole of the sum of five per cent to be appropriated within the
state to the construction of roads and canals, and promotion
of education, under the direction of the legislature thereof."
This amendment having been agreed to, the committee of the
whole took up the consideration of the second section of the
substitute ordinance. Green delivered two speeches in an
attempt to slightly amend this section, which related to the
equal taxation of non-resident and resident land-holders.
Emmons, Scott, Cook of Ste. Genevieve, and Barton opposed
and finally defeated Green's amendment. Barton and Thomas
then opposed the entire section and succeeded in having it struck
out. The substitute ordinance as amended by Bates was re
ported to the convention, concurred in, and ordered to be en
grossed. On July 14th the convention agreed to the engrossed
ordinance on its third reading,*^ and three days later, after an
attempt, made by McFerron, to defeat it had failed, it was

" It is not clear what was the first section of Scott's substitute.
" Journal, p. 44.

Labors of the Convention. 181
again carried in the affirmative.*' After having been correctly
enrolled, the final draft of the ordinance was signed by Barton
and Pettus on the last day of the session of the convention.**
We have treated this subject at greater length than is
customary; but to us such treatment appears clearly war
ranted. This ordinance is one of the few organic laws that have
applied to Missouri; and further, it is today the second oldest
fundamental law that is in force in this state. The acts of
Congress passed between 1804 and 1820 that applied to the
government of upper Louisiana and Missouri Territory, were
superceded by the Missouri constitution of 1820; the latter by
the constitution of 1865; and this in turn by the present con
stitution of 1875. But, the ordinance of July 19, 1820, passed
by the convention of that date, was "irrevocable except on the
consent of Congress." Finally, this ordinance although not a
requisite for the admission of Missouri was necessary if that
state expected to receive national land grants and money aid
for internal improvements, education and a seat of government.
Its authors in the convention were Heath, Scott, and Bates.
Its passage in the convention reveals several interesting side
lights on that body. The delegates favored the strictest and
most limited interpretation of those conditions or provisos im
posed on Missouri by Congress that were to be included in the
ordinance; and, on the contrary, though quite naturally, they
requested Congress to broaden the scope of her donations.
The convention refused to declare by an irrevocable law that
Missouri would never impose a higher tax on non-resident
land-holders than on resident land-holders,*^ but at the same
time that body was practically a unit in placing in that ordinance
a plea for Congress to grant more money for roads and canals
in Missouri. We do not believe that the convention willfully

" IMd., p. 46.
" IMd., p. 46ff.
" This prohibition and the proviso relating to navigable rivers were placed
on the general assembly of Missouri in Article X of the constitution of 1820.
That article, however, contained no clause which exempted it from being subject
to amendment the same as the other provision of the constitution; nor is such a
proviso clause contained in that article which provided the manner of amending
the constitution.

182 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
tried to antagonize Congress on the taxation question, it seems
to us that the proviso of Congress on this point was inherently
an unpopular one to the delegates and their constituents. The
non-resident holder of Missouri land escaped at least one
arduous, dangerous, and not inexpensive duty: He was free
from militia service in this state. Furthermore, he was as a
rule not only an unprogressive factor in the state but frequently
a serious drawback to its development. The curse of land
speculation was a serious problem in those pioneer days. The
messages of the first governor of Wisconsin Territory are full
of this subject.*' This mania of legalized gambling had pos
sessed Missouri from the very inception of American rule.
Disastrous as were its evils when confined to resident land
holders, these evils never aroused that wave of popular disfavor
and positive hatred that was directed against the absentee
landlords. The former at least shared the burdens and dangers
of a frontier life; the latter were regarded, justly or unjustly,
as profitting by the pioneers' industry without contributing
anything to the development of the state. Even such a con
servative and temperate minded man as Bates apparently
thought that equal taxation under such circumstances was
unjust. With Bates stood Barton, Heath, Buckner, and
Thomas, and the convention itself, while only two, Green and
Scott, spoke in favor of this proviso. The least that the con
vention could do and still comply with the demands of Con
gress, was exactly what it did: The taxation and navigation
provisos were inserted in the constitution, but nowhere in that
document were these provisos or any other provisos exempt
from the ordinary process of amendment.
In framing the constitution the committee method was
adopted by the convention. The advantages of this method
over the assembly method are so well known that a detailed
exposition of it is hardly necessary. The former manner of
working is almost imperative in any large deliberative body
and lends itself very conveniently to the needs and wishes of
a small assembly. By a division of labors and by a specializa
tion of work the committee system enables such a body to
" See Shambaugh, Messages of the Governors of Iowa, I.

Labors of the Convention. 183
progress with greater dispatch, to handle more questions
within a limited time, and to perform a higher quality of work.
This system does not necessarily carry with it the elimination
of deliberation on the part of the body that appoints or adopts
it; the opposite is generally the rule. The assembly plan of
procedure does eliminate the committee, but the committee
plan is essentially a complement to, and not an absorber of,
the assembly. The first resolution submitted to the convention on this
subject was proposed by Bates. He favored the appointment
of a single committee to draft a constitution.*'' The convention
refused, however, to adopt this measure.** On the same day,
June 13th, a resolution was proposed by Thomas, and carried,
that four committees, each consisting of three members, be
appointed by the president of the convention to do the following
work: one committee was to draft the legislative department,
on it were appointed Jones, Emmons and Clark; one, the ex
ecutive, composed of Rector, Cook of Madison and Evans; one
the judiciary, composed of Thomas, Cook of Ste. Genevieve
and Bates; and one, the bill of rights and other parts not before
mentioned, composed of Ramsay, Hammond and Green.*' We
do not hesitate to say that, including Barton, who undoubtedly
exercised a great influence over the members of all the com
mittees by virtue of both his ability and his power of appoint
ment, most of the influential men of the convention were placed

" Journal, p. 5.
*' Bates left blank the number of committee places. There are, we beUeve,
only two advantages in Bates' plan over the assembly plan: the constitution if
framed by one committee would probably have been more unified in both subject
matter and style, and would probably have been framed in less time. There is
also this possible item in its favor, that if the committee was composed of the
ablest men of the convention, the constitution so framed might have been a
stronger document. We do not, however, regard this last as a necessary con
clusion even if the committee had been composed of ouly one member and he, a
Bates, a Barton, a Benton, or a Jones. On the other hand. Bates' plan carries
with it some definite objections: if the committee is small, too few men are in
vested with too much power, and, further, it cannot be representative of the state
at large in those great fields of legislation set forth in a constitution; if the com
mittee is large, then it either loses that celerity of action and power of specializa
tion which are the foundations of the committee system, or it divides itself into
several sub-committees. The convention was doubtless aware of these ob
jections and voted accordingly.
"Journal pp. 5, 7.

184 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
on these four committees.^" Although ten of the fifteen coun
ties of the territory were represented on these four committees,
only three of the counties were north of the Missouri River.''
And of the twelve committee places only four were held by the
delegates who represented that half of Missouri's population
that lay north of the River and in the county of Cooper. Fur
ther, only one chairmanship of these four was given to this
section. This unfairness was partly offset, however, by the
fact that although the northern and extreme western counties
were allowed only four representatives on these committees,
these four controlled two committees.*^ But on the other two
committees these counties had no representatives whatever to
voice their wishes.
The four committees appointed on Tuesday, June 13th,
reported to the convention on Friday, June 16th, the several
parts of the constitution that they had drafted.^' Cook of
Madison then made a motion that the several reports be com
mitted to a select committee composed of one member from
each of the four committees, for the purpose of forming these
reports into one consistent whole. Thomas asked for the
reading of these reports, that the convention might see the
necessity of the commitment. This request very singularly,
we think, appears to have aroused much discussion among the
delegates. Remarks were make by such eminent men as
Thomas, Heath, Green, Cook of Madison, Cook of Ste. Gene
vieve, Buckner, Emmons and Bates. An entire day was spent
considering this very commonplace request, which in itself if

" Scott had not then taken his seat, the appointment of Rector and Bates
from St. Louis naturally excluded McNair and Pratte, since the appointment
of more than two members from one county would probably have aroused criti
cism. " Of the twelve committee places on these four committees, eight were held
by delegates from Washington, St. Charles, Cooper, Madison, Ste. Genevieve,
Montgomery, Jefferson, and Howard; two, from St. Louis; and two. from Cape
Girardeau. It is singular that New Madrid was the only county having two or
more delegates that was not represented on these committees. No county's
delegates constituted a majority of any committee. See supra. Chap. V. ou the
occupations represented on these four committees.
" These two committees were the legislative and bill of rights committee.
" Journal p. 10. The chairman of these committees presented their reports
severally except in the case of the executive committee, whose work was reported
by Cook of Madison and not by Rector. Mo. Intell, June 24, 1820.

Labors of the Convention. 185
granted would probably not have taken over an hour's time.
We can see no sensible reason for any of the delegates opposing
Thomas' motion unless it was either a sincere desire on the part
of some to facilitate business and not to get involved in debate
so early in the session, or the fear of others that the convention
would be too thoroughly enlightened, either favorably or un
favorably, regarding certain parts of the constitution before
these parts could be successfully opposed or defended by some
leaders of that body. The opponents of Thomas' motion were
finally successful and the reading of the four reports was dis
pensed with : Cook's motion for a select committee was adopted
and Jones, Evans, Cook of Ste. Genevieve and Ramsay, were
appointed on it.'*
We regard the work accomplished by the convention on
this day, June 16th, as significant. First, certain leaders in
that body then actually accomplished the remarkable feat of
persuading the delegates not to hear the reports of those com
mittees that they had authorized and that had been appointed,
to draft a constitution for Missouri. These reports were never
read or printed. Their contents were as much a sealed book
to the large majority of the delegates as they are to us. The
original draft of Missouri's first constitution will never be
known. It is certain that a determined fight was made to ac
complish this virtual suppression of these original reports. We
believe that this suppression was a thoroughly and deeply
planned, an ably and successfully executed, step towards ob
taining the substantial adoption of Bates' defeated resolution
of June 13th. What could not be won directly was to be gained
indirectly. Our conviction is strengthened not only by what
immediately followed on June 16th, but also by this, that the
report or reports on this constitution of no other committees,
however insignificant, were ever recommitted to a new com
mittee without either having previously been read and acted
upon by the convention or printed for the use of its members.
Second, on this day a small committee was decided upon and
appointed, which in actual power was simply Bates' original

"Mo. Intell, June 24, 1820; Journal p. 10. The Journal reveals nothing
regarding this struggle; we obtained our account from the Mo. Intell

186 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
committee resurrected from its grave of defeat.'' The author
of the former was Cook of Madison, of the latter. Bates; the
one was called a select committee and its powers and duties in
drafting a constitution were practically unlimited, the other
was not given a name and its powers were to draft a constitu
tion. This slight and wholly superficial difference was sufficient,
aided undoubtedly by new promises and combinations, to snatch
victory from defeat. Finally, the select committee appointed
on this day was singularly unrepresentative of the districts of
Missouri Territory. This committee of all the committees ap
pointed during this convention, should have been the most
representative of the several parts of Missouri Territory. The
unlimited power vested in it to draft a constitution raised it
above all other committees in importance. It was in essence
the four original committees contracted to one committee and
reduced to four members. But while a certain amount of in
justice to the western and northern counties was apparent in
the membership of the four committees, this injustice was
equity itself when contrasted with the obvious discrimination
shown in the membership of the select committee. In spite
of the fact, more or less appreciated by the convention, that
half of Missouri's population was in the tier of northern and
far western counties in 1820, these counties had only one dele
gate on this select committee, while the other half of the terri
tory had three delegates on it. Another significant feature
regarding the composition of this all powerful committee is
this, that of its four members three were lawyers of the highest
ability and influence. In other words, of the nine lawyer dele
gates, one appointed the committee that made the original
draft of Missouri's first constitution and three absolutely con-

" According to the Journal p. 10, the reports of the four committees "were
recommitted to a select committee." It is true that the correspondent of the
Mo. Intell, June 24, 1820, states that Cook of Madison, who was the author of
the select committee motion, favored this select committee in order to have it
unify these four reports. But it is quite improbable that this purpose or argument
of Cook's was incorporated in his motion. And, further, the Journal is very
explicit in all other cases in stating the duty of each committee. Its silence here
can be attributed only to this, that the duty of the select committee was not set
forth in the motion that created it. And, finally, the ignorance of the convention
regarding the contents of the reports of the four committees, enabled the select
committee to alter at will those reports and even frame a practically new draft.

Labors of the Convention. 187
trolled that committee. Our summaries are even these: (1)
fifty per cent of Missouri's population in 1820, the extreme
northern and western portions, was given a representation of
only twenty-five per cent on the select committee; the other
fifty per cent of Missouri's population, the southern portion,
had a representation of seventy-five per cent in this same body:
(2) twenty- two per cent of the delegates, the nine lawyers in
the convention, was given a representation of seventy-five per
cent on the select committee, — an overwhelming working
majority in any business — ; the other seventy-eight per cent
of the delegates, the business, agricultural, and professional
men, had a representation of only twenty-five per cent on this
committee.'* The ability of the select committee to accomplish work
with dispatch, is seen in the fact that it reported to the conven
tion on the day following its creation." Fifty copies of this
report were ordered printed for the use of the delegates; but
since not one of these pamphlets has been preserved, and, owing
also to the unsatisfactory and incomplete character of the
Journal, it is impossible to obtain the slightest clue as to the
contents of this report. The different parts of this report were
considered from time to time by the convention resolved into a
committee of the whole. In this committee the constitution
was discussed section by section, and it is regrettable that no
minutes of these debates were kept either by some member or
by the secretary of the convention. As articles of the constitu
tion were decided upon by the committee of the whole, they
were reported by it to the convention for a third reading." On

" Cf. supra, chap. V.. on the personnel of the convention. We are unable
to explain why Rector and Thomas, the respective chairman of the executive
and judicial committees, were not appointed on this select committee. It seems
that this would have been a natural selection and in the case of Ramsay and
Jones, the respective chairmen of the legislative and biU of rights committees,
this plan was followed. It is not improbable that both Rector and Thomas
were not personae gratae to Barton, and Thomas' request to have the four reports
read to the convention seems to be in line with this assumption.
" Journal, p. 10. The Journal here speaks of the select committees as one
"appointed for the purpose of revising and consoUdating the diflerent reports
made to the convention relating to the constitution to be formed."
'¦ The Journal is not clear in its account of this last point. The minutes of
the proceedings of the convention seem to indicate that the committee of the
whole reported directly to the convention; the duty of the committee on style.

188 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
this third reading the convention considered the constitution
section by section. The Journal for the first time now throws
a little light on the different parts of that instrument; but this
light is provokingly unsatisfactory. As no section of the con
stitution is printed in the Journal unless some amendment was
proposed and frequently even then only the amendment is given,
it is difficult if not impossible to determine the substance of
many of the sections either as reported by the committee of the
whole or as adopted at this time by the convention."
On June 29th Bates submitted a resolution that provided
for the appointment of what might be appropriately called a
committee on style. Bates' resolution was adopted by the
convention, and Bates, Cook of Ste. Genevieve and Findlay,
were appointed on the committee.*" The duty and power of
this committee on style, as set forth in the resolution, were
to revise, arrange and transpose, if necessary, the sections of
the constitution as passed by the committee of the whole with
out altering in any respect the substance thereof. It was,
therefore, purely a committee on style or revision, a body pos
sessing no original legislative power. Although the provisions
of the resolutions relating to this committee on style were clear,
it does not appear that this committee followed them. In the
first place, it did not revise the constitution after the action of
the committee of the whole but considered that document after
the convention had passed upon it on its third reading. We do
not, however, see any special significance in this departure from
instructions. In the second place, although the committee on
style was forbidden to alter the substance of any section of the

which will next be considered, was "to revise, arrange, and where it may be neces
sary, transpose the sections of the constitution, as the same have passed the
committee of the whole without altering in any respect the substance thereof."
(Journal, p. 15.) It does not appear, however, that this new committee, the
committee on style, ever revised the reports of the committee of the whole until
after these reports were acted upon by the convention.
'» We have supplemented the Journal's account of the drafting and adopting
of the constitution with the accounts in the Missouri newspapers of that period.
One of our greatest losses is the two missing issues of the Mo. Intell of July Sth
and 15th. 1820, which would undoubtedly have cleared up several of our problems
in this line. The files of the other Missouri newspapers covering the months of
June and July are either incomplete or contain little Information on the workings
of the convention.
" Journal, p. 15.

Labors of the Convention, 189
constitution, it appears that this was done in several instances.
The comparative ease with which this alteration could be ac
complished made this prohibition of little actual worth. The
constitution as acted upon on its third reading by the convention
was not printed, nor was the constitution as reported by the
committee of the whole printed; the first printed draft of the
constitution was that reported by the select committee, which
draft had been changed in the committee of the whole and later
in the convention. The failure of the committee to print the
constitution as it was handed over to the committee on style,
enabled that committee to exercise powers that were not granted
to it. This last function was rendered even more secure by the
total absence of any record of the changes made by the com
mittee of the whole on the report of the select committee and
by the incomplete, almost obscure, minutes, kept by the sec
retary, of the proceedings of the convention on its consideration
of the report o£ the committee of the whole, combined with
those very simple and apparently unimportant, but really
most significant, powers of the committee on style to revise,
arrange, and, if necessary, transpose the sections of the con
stitution. By these powers, the committee on style, was
easily enabled to so rearrange the sections that in the absence
of a printed copy of the constitution as reported either by the
committee of the whole or by the convention, few delegates
could have detected all the changes made.
The committee on style reported from time to time to the
convention the various articles of the constitution that had
been submitted to it for revision. Although nearly all of the
constitution passed through the hands of this committee, its
report on only three articles was ordered printed," and not
one of these printed copies has been preserved. Moreover, it
is, with very few exceptions, impossible to obtain from the
Journal a complete knowledge of what these various reports
were. The same obstacles here confront the research worker
that are met with in considering the reports of the committee
of the whole to the convention. There is, however, this ad-

"These were on the legislative, executive and judicial departments. Journal,
p. 27.

190 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
vantage in analyzing the report of the committee on style:
In some instances where the text of a reported section is not
given in the Journal and that section is not later changed by
the convention, its wording is the same as was finally inserted
in the constitution. The difficulty lies in ascertaining the
identity of the number of the section as reported and its number
as adopted. In nearly all other cases the contents of a reported
section is given in full in the Journal, i. e., in those cases where
amendments to sections were proposed or adopted by the con
vention. The committee on style was one of the two most important
committees that framed Missouri's first constitution. However,
it did not, we believe, make any important alterations in several
articles of that instrument, although these articles were re
ported upon by it in a manner similar to the method pursued
in handling the body of the constitution. The parts we refer
to are: "Article VIII. of Banks," "Article XI. Of The Permanent
Seat Of Government," and the "Schedule" of the constitution.
The importance and publicity attached to these three subjects
rendered any shadowy alteration of their contents a perilous
undertaking for any committee, even though that committee
was composed of the leaders of the convention. The con
centration of the convention's attention on any part of the
constitution greatly compromised the otherwise commanding
leadership of certain men. And few parts of that document
were more closely followed by every delegate, public men,
editor, and a large majority of the voters of Missouri, than
those few clauses that regulated the establishing of a State
bank, the determining of a permanent and a temporary seat of
government, and that settled the apportionment of the members
of the first State legislature. Three special committees were
appointed to handle these subjects even after they had been
considered by the committee of the whole following the report
of the select committee.
On June 26th a committee composed of Cook of Ste. Gene
vieve, Pratte and Dawson, was appointed to inquire into what
action should be taken by the convention regarding the pro
posed gift of four sections of land from the United States gov-

Labors of the Convention. 191
ernment for a permanent seat of government of Missouri.*^
On July 3d this committee reported and its report, after a reading,
was laid on the table.*' Nothing further was done with this
report and its contents is not known. On the same day that
this committee reported another committee composed of Jones,
Houts and McFerron, was appointed to report on the Schedule
and Banking articles of the constitution.** On July 6th, this
last committee reported to the convention on a "State Bank
and Branches" and on the "Schedule," and these were referred
to and considered by the committee of the whole.*' The con
tents of these two reports are not known.** The schedule as
finally reported by the committee of the whole to the con
vention contained sections on a permanent and a temporary
seat of government as well as provisions regulating the transition
from a territorial to a state government in Missouri. The
committee on style did not change the important sections of
the schedule but it did report that section of it which related
to the permanent seat of government as a separate article, and
this revision was agreed to by the convention.*' The report
of the committee of the whole on a state bank was displaced by
a substitute article submitted to the convention by Bates.**
The debate in the convention over this subject was extended
and lasted for several days. Bates' substitute was finally re
ferred to a new banking committee composed of Findlay,
Reeves and Riddick." This new committee reported a substi
tute for Bates' very conservative bank measure and this new
substitute was adopted by the convention.

-' Journal, p. 13. The author of the resolution that created this committee
was Cook of Ste. Genevieve. It is of Interest to notice that no northern or
western delegate was on this committee and also that the agricultural class was
unrepresented. " Ibid., p. 23.
" IMd., p. 20. Findlay was the author of the motion that created this com
mittee. " Ibid., pp. 27f.
•¦ The former, on banks, was ordered printed, but no copy exists.
" IMd., pp. 39. 45. The conimittee on style reported the schedule on July
13th and the permanent seat of govemment article on the 15th.
" Ibid. , pp. 27fl.
" Ibid., p. 30. Findlay was the author of the motion creating this new
bank committee.

192 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
The last committee on the constitution to be appointed
was that on enrollment. On July 12th, Findlay, Cook of Ste.
Genevieve and Bates, were appointed on this committee and
on the 13th, the secretary of the convention was ordered to
deliver to it "the different articles of the constitution as they
shall have been acted on, for the purpose of having them en
grossed for a third reading, and final passage." '" On the 17th
of July the engrossed constitution was read in its final passage
and was adopted by a vote of thirty-nine to one. Emmons
was absent on this final vote owing to indisposition. Mc
Ferron cast a vote against the adoption of the constitution
because of his objection to that section which disqualified every
citizen naturalized since 1804 from being a qualified candidate
for governor of Missouri. '^ On the 19th the committee on
enrollment reported to the convention that the constitution
had been truly enrolled. It was then signed by the president
and by all the delegates, "and countersigned by the secretary." "

^'IMd., p. 39. A committee was appointed on the 17th to cause the con
stitution to be translated into the French language, and three himdred copies
to be printed and distributed for the use of the French inhabitants. Pratte,
Chouteau and Riddick were appointed on this comnuttee. Ibid., p. 46.
" IMd., pp. 46f. McFerron obtained leave of the convention to enter this
objection on the Journal. McFerron's objection was to Art. IV. sec. 2.
'¦ Ibid., pp. 47f.

CHAPTER vn.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE MISSOURI CONSTITUTION
OF 1820.
The authorship of the Missouri constitution of 1820 will
always prove an interesting subject for discussion and investiga
tion. This subject carries all the "ear-marks" for controversial
writing that are so characteristic of many questions in English
constitutional history. The latter are settled in a "final"
manner every decade but each settlement is only a new basis
for further controversy. The facts at hand have always proven
sufficient for a decision but not sufficient to prevent a refutation
of that decision or to prevent a different interpretation. So
in the case of the authorship of the Missouri constitution of
1820, there has always existed data enough to warrant a con
viction, but, curiously, this data has either been of an untrust
worthy character, or has not been carefully interpreted, or has
been entirely passed over to give place to rumor. The evidence
at hand is today, however, sufficiently strong to warrant a
scientific investigation and discussion of this subject.
The secondary authorities are not satisfactory, advancing
little or no evidence for their statements.' Their conclusions,

' Darby, op. cil, p. 28, states as follows: "The most Important provisions
of that instrument were framed by David Barton; and from that day to the present
it has been caUed and known as the Barton Constitution." (Darby pubUshed his
Recollections in 1880.)
BiUon, op. cil., p. 106, MM., who probably followed Darby on this point,
says the constitution was "mostly the work of David Barton." (Billon published
his Annals of 1801f-21 in 1888.) Houck, III. 250, agrees with Billon.
Both Darby and BiUon deserve consideration for many of their statements
that are even unsupported with evidence. Both were contemporaries and partly
makers of the events that occurred in Missouri history almost from the admission
of that State to the date of the publication of their works, — a period of over
half a century. There is, therefore, probably some element of value in the fore
going quotations; but to accept these statements unquestioned is impossible.
Switzler, Carr, and Davis and Durrie make no comment on the authorship
of this constitution.
Hodder, Side Lights on the Mo. Compromise, rejects Darby and BiUon regard
ing Barton's authorship. He very suggestively writes: "The meagre record of
the Jovirnal furnishes no support for it. It would seem to be the result of con
fusing the authorship of the constitution with the name given to the convention
M S— 13 (193)

194 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
therefore, can have no more value here than merely to corrobo
rate or to contradict what will have been determined on better
evidence. And, as is well known, neither mere corroboration
nor contradiction adds to or detracts from the intrinsic worth
of a historical fact.
The source material and the indirect evidence available
are, however, very valuable and are of a trustworthy character.
The former is confined to the Journal of the convention and to
newspaper articles: the latter consists principally of those
biographical facts that relate to the personnel of the convention.
One is the foundation for our investigation, the other supplements
and checks the former. Both are so closely related that either
would be unreliable if unsupported by the other. We are,
therefore, forced to interpret the source material not only by
what it seems to say but also by what the biographies of the
delegates will permit it to say. Thus the acts of the delegates
in the convention and the lives of these men outside that body
enable us to determine in a general way the authorship of Mis
souri's constitution of 1820.
In determining the authorship of Missouri's constitution
of 1820 we purpose to interpret the activity of the delegates on
constitution measures in four ways. First, we shall determine
what delegates, acting as individuals and not as committees,
were introducers of measures on which no vote was recorded;
second, what delegates, acting in their individual capacity, were
introducers of important measures on which votes were re
corded; third, what delegates were successful and what were
unsuccessful in voting on important measures; and fourth,

by reason of Barton's having been its presiding officer." Hodder thinks that
Bates was the leading spirit of the convention and by being chairman of the com
mittee on style "occupies with reference to the flrst constitution of Missouri
the position which Gouveneur Morris occupies with reference to the Constitution
of the United States." (Am. Hist. Assn. Report, 1909. p. 156; Mo. Hist. Review,
V. 142.) We are unable to accept all of Hodder's statements regarding Bates'
relation to this constitution. We are certain that Hodder did not make a careful
examination of the Journal nor was he sufficiently informed regarding the per
sonnel of the convention. We appreciate, however, the high worth of the remainder
of his paper and, further, that this question of the authorship of Missouri's flrst
constitution was not an essential part of Hodder's study. Our objections to
Hodder's explanation of the constitution's authorship wiU be apparent as we
proceed.

Authorship of the Missouri Constitution. 195
what delegates were appointed on committees that drafted
the constitution.^ The convention considered and decided thirty-three dif
ferent constitution measures on which no vote was recorded.
Of these thirty-three measures twenty-nine were important.
These measures were introduced by fifteen delegates. Bates
introduced five measures: two of these were important, one
only relatively important, and two unimportant, — all five were
adopted.' McFerron introduced four measures: three were
important, of which one was adopted, and one unimportant,
which also carried.* The single important measure of Mc
Ferron's that carried, proved immediately to be the initiatory
measure to a proposition which he was opposed to and which
was adopted. In short, McFerron's one conspicuous victory
proved a defeat.' John Cook introduced four measures: three
were important, and one of doubtful significance, — all four were
adopted.* Scott, Riddick and Perry, each introduced three

' The meagerness of the Journal's account of the convention makes necessary
such a detailed manner of proof. The absence of speeches and letters of the dele
gates on this subject also niakes essential such a minute analysis of the votes of
the delegates. ' Journal pp. 36, 38, 40, 42. Bates'es two important measures were the
striking out of the constitution a, section which made it commandatory on the
legislature to suppress duelUng and a section which made judgments confessed
for debt or damages in any court of record or before a justice of the peace, as
valid as judgments rendered in the ordinary course of legal proceedings. His
relatively important measure provided for the flrst revision of the laws to be made
within three years instead of flve. One of Bates' unimportant measures, a very
interesting one, gave the name "Declaration of Rights" instead of its previous
designation, "General Provisions," to those fundamental principles of individual
Uberty that are so deeply imbedded in the laws of English speaking people.
' Ibid., pp. 21, 25, 40, 43. McFerron's three important measures, the second
of which was adopted, were to give the legislature power to abolish the offlce of
Ueutenant-governor, to expressly give equity jurisdiction to the State courts,
and to insert in the constitution an excellent and advanced section on public
schools, which section also included an educational quahflcation for voters after
1841. His unimportant measure was section two of article XIII. of the constitu
tion. ' Ibid., p. 40. McFerron amended the first section of the article on the
judiciary so as to expressly give equity jurisdiction to the State's courts. Bates
then established the office of chancellor, which was opposed by McPerron.
« Ibid., pp. 22, 31, 37, 44. Cook's amendment relating to the election of
sherifls and coroners is not clear to us. His three important measures enlarged
the powers of the permanent seat of government commissioners that were to be
appointed at the flrst session of the legislature, reduced the minimum size of
new counties from six hundred and twenty-flve square miles to four hundred.

196 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
important measures. All of Scott's measures were adopted;
two of Riddick's; and one of Perry's.'' Buckner, Ramsay and
Hammond, each introduced two important measures. All of
Buckner's and Ramsay's measures and one of Hammond's,
were adopted.* Boone, Dawson, Jones, Ray and Thomas,
each introduced an important measure. The measures of
Dawson, Jones and Ray were adopted; part of Thomas'es
carried; and Boone's failed to carry. Evans introduced a
measure, that passed, which struck out an unknown section
and inserted a new one. The new section was later struck
out.^ The fifteen delegates who introduced the thirty- three

and included section 2 of article X. of the constitution, which conformed to the
conditions of the Enabling Act regarding the free navigation of all navigable
streams in or bordering on Missouri.
' Scott was the author of the clause that disqualified United States soldiers
from voting in Missouri, of the section that empowered the legislature to determine
the salary of its members, and of both sections of article VI. of the constitution
which related to the estabUshment of a public school system and a state university.
(Journal, pp. 35, 36, 37f.) Scott may be justly called the father of Missouri's
educational system, having not only obtained from Congress the land grants for
this purpose but having also written the broad, constitutional provisions governing
these grants.
Riddick was the author of the clause that gave the legislature power to change
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the circuit courts in civil cases, and of the
clause that limited the number of branches of the state bank to flve. He also
introduced a measure to strike out the clause that empowered the legislature to
pass laws permitting slave-owners to emancipate their slaves. This was lost.
(Journal pp. 23, 30, 36.)
Perry was the author of the four year term for senators. He introduced a
measure striking out the $2,000.00 a year minimum salary clause for judges,
with the view of inserting $1,600.00. The $2,000.00 was struck out, but $1,800.00
was inserted. He later had the $1,800.00 struck out, but $2,000.00 was inserted
despite Perry's opposition. Thus these two last important measures of Perry
were lost. Perry belonged to the low-salary faction of the convention that fought
hard, though unsuccessfully, to reduce the compensation allowed the state officers
by the constitution. (Joumal, pp. 16, 24, 40.)
• Buckner introduced one measure Umiting the maximum capital stock of
the state bank to flve million dollars and another excepting priests and preachers
from being subject to miUtary duty or from being compelled to bear arms. (Jour
nal pp. 30, 42.) Ramsay introduced one measure that was the same as Buck
ner's regarding bank stock and another that prescribed biennial sessions of the
legislature and the time of meeting. (Journal, pp. 28, 37.) Hammond was the
author of a measure which made it commandatory on the legislature to suppress
duelling. After the passage of the section. Bates had it struck out. Hammond
was also the author of the section which compeUed a debtor to surrender his
property according to the manner prescribed by law if he expected to be secure
from imprisonment for debt. (Journal, pp. 36, 42.)
• Boone tried to have the temporary seat of government estabUshed at St.
Charles Instead of at St. Louis. His measure lost. (Journal, p. 32.) Dawson was
the author of the thirty year minimum age qualiflcation of judges. (IMd., p.

Authorship of the Missouri Constitution. 197
measures in which no vote was recorded fall naturally into four
classes. The first class consisted of Bates, John Cook and
Scott. These three men introduced and had adopted nine
important measures and three unimportant ones. They were
the authors of thirty-one per cent of the important measures
introduced and of fifty per cent of those adopted. Again, they
were the authors of seventy-five per cent of the unimportant
measures introduced and adopted. The second class consisted
of Riddick, Buckner and Ramsay. These delegates introduced
six important measures of which five were adopted. They
were the authors of twenty-one per cent of the important
measures introduced and of twenty-eight per cent of those
adopted. The third class consisted of Dawson, Ray, Hammond
and Perry. These four men introduced seven important
measures of which four were adopted. They were the authors
of twenty-four per cent of the important measures introduced
and of twenty-two per cent of those adopted. The fourth
class consisted of Boone, Evans, Jones, McFerron and Thomas.
These five introduced seven important measures and one un
important one, of which only the last was adopted. They
were the authors of twenty-four per cent of the important
measures introduced but failed to have one adopted.
These figures make it evident that the principal authors
of this kind of adopted measures were Bates, John Cook and
Scott. The individual successful average of each of the dele
gates of the first class was sixteen and two- thirds per cent; of
the second class nine and one- third per cent; of the third class
five and one-half per cent, and of the fourth class, 0%. The
delegates of all four classes were men of ability and were active
in political affairs. Their part in framing Missouri's con
stitution of 1820 would have been a very important one had
they accomplished nothing more. This is especially true of

23.) Jones was the author of a section requiring state or United States officials
to resign their office fifteen days before their appointment or election to a new
office. (IMd., p. 17). This was adopted but later was omitted from the consti
tution. Ray reduced the minimum size of old counties from twenty-flve nules
square to twenty. (IMd., p. 37.) For Thomas'es measures see Journal, p. 26.
For Evan'es, ibid., p. 27.

198 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Bates, John Cook and Scott, and in a degree of Riddick, Buck
ner and Ramsay.'"
The convention considered and decided sixty-nine consti
tution measures on which the vote was recorded. Of these
measures, forty-eight were important. '^ Seven of these had
no recorded authors; the remaining forty-one were introduced
by sixteen delegates. These sixteen delegates fall naturally
into two classes: those who were able to have some of their
measures adopted; and those who were entirely unsuccessful.
The first class consisted of five delegates. They intro
duced fourteen important measures, of which six were adopted.
Bates introduced three measures, of which two were adopted.
Buckner introduced five measures, of which one was adopted.
John Cook introduced two, of which one was adopted. Ham
mond introduced three and won one. Scott introduced and
won one.'^ These five delegates were the authors of this kind
of adopted measures. They included the three principal

" Barton's official position in the convention or his poUtical astuteness pro
hibited him from Introducing measures in person. He never, however, missed
casting a vote.
" The flnal vote on the adoption of the constitution is not included in these
forty-eight measures. Only McFerron voted against the adoption of the con
stitution, so that no trace of authorship of that instrument is found in this vote.
" Bates was the author of the section that prohibited the estabUshing of a
religious corporation and of the section that estabUshed the offlce of chanceUor.
He failed to have struck out the section that provided for the removal of judges
on address of the general assembly. (Journal pp. 26, 40, 41.)
Buckner had struck out the clause that provided an educational qualiflca
tion for voters after 1841. He faUed to carry the foUowing provisions: one
for a one year term for representatives; one, for a six year term for judges; one
which reduced the representation of certain counties by one representative; and
one which established St. Charles instead of St. Louis as the flrst meeting place
of the general assembly. (Journal pp. 34, 41, 43, 45, 46.)
John Cook was the author of section one, article XL, of the constitution
which prohibited the general assembly from interfering with the primary disposal
of the soil of the United States, and from taxing non-resident landowners higher
than resident landowners. He failed to have struck out the clause empowering
the general assembly to delay judgments, etc. six months. (Journal, pp. 25, 44.)
Hammond had struck out a clause that granted the legislature more power
in emancipating slaves. (Journal p. 36.) He failed to have struck out a clause
which would have resulted in entirely disqualifying state senators and represent
atives from all civil offices except elective ones during their term. He also failed to
have adopted a clause which would have quaUfled for the governorship any citizen
of the United States who was naturalized at the time of the cession of Louisiana.
(Journal pp. 35, 39.)
Scott introduced a measure that struck out St. Louis as the temporary seat
of government and provided only for the flrst meeting of the general assembly
there with power to adjourn elsewhere till 1826. This carried. (Journal, p. 45.)

Authorship of the Missouri Constitution. 199
authors of measures on which no vote was recorded, Bates,
John Cook and Scott, and the two able delegates Buckner and
Hammond. The second class consisted of eleven delegates. They
introduced twenty-seven important measures, of which none
was adopted. Dawson, Emmons, and Riddick, each introduced
one measure; Ramsay, two; Evans, Findlay, Green, Jones,
Perry and Thomas, each, three; and McFerron, four.'' These
eleven delegates could not have left an impression on the con
stitution by these measures.
The authorship of the constitution is also partly revealed
in the votes cast by the delegates on the foregoing forty-eight
important measures. This insight into the constitution is,
however, gained in an indirect way. Of these forty-eight
measures, only twelve were adopted, and of these twelve, two
were nullified by negating each other and two had been reported
by a committee. So only eight new measures of the forty-eight
important measures were finally incorporated in the constitu-

" Dawson favored empowering the legislature to suppress duelUng by making
the parties flght to death in the presence of appointed, sworn offlcers. (Journal,
p. 36.) Emmons favored removing the disquaUflcation on priests and preachers
from holding public offlce. (Ibid., p. 16.) Riddick proposed a tax qualiflcation
for voters. (Ibid., p. 34.) Ramsay proposed to aboUsh the court of chancery,
and to strike out the thirty year minimum age quaUfication for judges. (Ibid.,
pp. 23, 41.) Evans favored locating the permanent seat of government at St.
Louis provided St. Loms erected the state buildings. He also favored an eighteen
year minimum age qualiflcation for voters, and viva voce voting. (Ibid., pp.
32, 34, 38.) Findlay opposed with two measures a minimum size for new counties.
With a third measure he advocated such a Umitation if applied to those counties
lying east of the flttth principal meridian line. (Ibid., pp. 17, 37.) Green opposed
disqualifying priests and preachers from holding public offlce. With two measures
he favored individual responsibiUty of stockholders in a state bank for the debts
of the bank. (Ibid., pp. 30, 35, 43.) Jones opposed giving the general assembly
power to change the term and tenure of the sherifl and coroner. He favored a
section that prohibited large gifts to reUgious orders except by the consent of
the general assembly. He also favored striking out that clause of the constitu
tion which empowered the permanent seat of government commissioners to buy
land from individuals. (Ibid., pp. 22, 26, 31.) Perry attempted with three
measures to lower the salary of the Govemor and the Judges. (Ibid., pp. 20, 24.)
Thomas favored a twenty-one year age quaUflcation for representatives and a
twenty-flve year age qualiflcation for senators. He favored striking out that
provision in the constitution which empowered the legislature to provide that
emancipated slaves leave the State. (IMd., pp. 16, 18.) McFerron favored a
one year term for representatives. He advocated with two measures a clause that
qualified naturalized citizens of the United States for the governorship. He
desired to aboUsh the offlce of lieutenant governor. (Ibid., pp. 15. 20, 21, 39.)

200 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
tion." Such meager data would be of little value for our
purpose if used as direct evidence on the authorship of the con
stitution, but if used as indirect proof it is important. The
votes of the delegates on the forty-eight important questions
show to a great degree the divisions or "line-up" of the dele
gates in the convention. These votes show what delegates
were successful either in endorsing the committee's reports or
in amending them, and what delegates were unsuccessful in
their voting. An analysis of the votes on these forty-eight
measures reveal four groups of delegates.
The first group of delegates was composed of those who as
individuals were successful in their voting in a ratio ranging
from three to one to seven to one. The individuals of this
group cast five hundred eighty-two successful votes and only one
hundred thirty-three unsuccessful ones. They cast forty-eight
and one-half per cent of the successful votes and only twenty-
five per cent of the unsuccessful ones. This group was composed
of seventeen delegates. They were Barton, Bates, Boone,
Chouteau, Clark, Cleaver, John Cook, Nathaniel Cook, Daw
son, Dodge, Heath, Rector, Riddick, Scott, Sullivan, Talbot,
and Wallace. Only four of these. Barton, Clark, Nathaniel
Cook and Riddick, voted on all forty-eight measures. Scott
did not cast a vote until July eleventh and missed twenty-five
of the forty-eight votes; Boone and Chouteau each missed
seventeen votes; and Heath missed fifteen votes. The most
successful voters of this class were Barton, Chouteau, the two
Cooks, Dodge, Rector, and Scott. Of these seven delegates

" Six of the adopted measures were those introduced by Bates, John Cook,
Scott, Buckner and Hammond. The other six adopted had no recorded authors.
They were on the following subjects: providing that the Ueutenant-governor
should be president of the senate and have a vote on a tie (Journal, p. 21) ; lowering
the minimum salary of judges from $2,000.00 to $1,800.00 a year (IMd., p. 24);
adopting the original minimum salary of $2,000.00 a year for judges (Ibid., pp.
40f.); providing that one-half the state bank stock should be reserved to the
State (Ibid., p. 28.); adopting Pindlay's committee's bank article, the one flnaUy
included in the constitution (Ibid., p. 30.); adopting the permanent seat of govern
ment article as reported by the committee and as amended by John Cook, and as
finally incorporated in the constitution (Ibid., p. 32.). One measure on which
the vote is recorded was lost. This provided that the temporary seat of govern
ment be at Potosi instead of at St. Louis. The author of this measure was not
recorded. (Ibid., p. 45.)

Authorship of the Missouri Constitution. 201
Barton, Chouteau, John Cook, Rector and Scott stood highest
in their voting average.
The second group of delegates was composed of those who
as individuals were successful in their voting in a ratio ranging
from two to one to two and one-half to one. The individuals
of this group cast three hundred and forty-one successful votes and
one hundred and fifty-eight unsuccessful ones. They cast twenty-
eight and one-half per cent of the successful votes and twenty-
nine per cent of the unsuccessful ones. This group was com
posed of eleven delegates. They were Baber, Brown, Evans,
Findlay, Green, Henry, Hutchings, Jones, Lillard, Perry and
Pratte. Only three of these. Brown, Jones and Perry, voted
on all forty-eight measures. Baber missed fifteen of the forty-
eight votes. The most successful voters of this class were
Evans, Findlay, Green and Jones. None of these four delegates
was, however, as successful as any of the delegates in the first
class. The third class of delegates was composed of those who as
individuals were successful about half the time in their voting.
The individual delegates of this group cast two hundred and
thirty-one successful votes and one hundred and eighty-eight
unsuccessful ones. They cast twenty per cent of the successful
votes and thirty-three per cent of the unsuccessful ones. This
group was composed of ten delegates. They were Bettis, Buck
ner, Burckhartt, Hammond, Houts, McNair, Ramsay, Ray,
Reeves, and Thomas. Only two of these, Burckhartt and
Houts, voted on all forty-eight measures. Buckner missed nine
teen and Thomas eighteen of the forty-eight votes. The most
successful voters of this class were Buckner, Burckhartt, Houts
and Ray. None of these stood, however, as high as any dele
gate in the second class on this point.
The fourth class was composed of three delegates who were
very unsuccessful in their voting. The individual delegates
of this class cast thirty-eight successful votes and sixty-six un
successful ones. They cast three per cent of the successful
votes and thirteen per cent of the unsuccessful ones. The
delegates in this group were Byrd, Emmons and McFerron.

202 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Emmons voted only nine times, missing thirty-nine of the
forty-eight votes taken.
An analysis of the foregoing data relating to the votes
recorded on the forty-eight important measures reveals the
following facts concerning the authorship of the constitution.
First, the convention sustained its committees in their reports
on the constitution and permitted few alterations. The con
vention adopted only eight new measures of the forty-eight
important ones proposed. The leaders behind this movement
for "regularity" were Barton, Bates, John Cook, Findlay and
Rector." Although Chouteau and Scott were successful voters,
their influence on the constitution was lessened in this respect
by their long absences from the convention. Second, aiding
this "regularity" and the leaders, was a majority of the dele
gates. Third, opposing these leaders in a conservative way
were ten delegates,'* all men of ability and political experience.
The leader of this opposition was Buckner. His activity on
the floor in advocating changes in the reports of the various
committees and his ability in securing some of his alterations
adopted, both prove this leadership. Ranking next to Buckner
in this work was Perry. Perry was the watchdog of the treasury
and the low-salary man of the convention. These men and their
assistants were not, however, able to accomplish much. And
fourth, opposing the leaders of the convention in a radical
manner were three delegates," who were hopelessly unsuccessful.
The convention by adopting the committee method of
procedure delegated great powers to few men. Although the
various committees' drafts of the constitution were referred
for discussion to the committee of the whole or to the convention
and were there subject to alteration, adoption or rejection, still
the original sections contained in these drafts were given more
respect and consideration than substitute provisions received.
Unless an officer or a committee fairly and democratically
chosen by a body of men, is flagrantly incompetent or corrupt,
'• Barton, John Cook aud Rector show this in their successful voting against
Innovations. Bates and Findlay do this by a comparatively high voting average
and especially by their prominent committee positions.
" See supra, class three.
" See supra, class four.

Authorship of the Missouri Constitution. 203
the acts and reports of such officer or committee are generally
approved by the appointors; and this is especially true of con
servative, deliberative bodies. The reason for this tendency
is found not only in the economy of time and effort that it
effects, but also in the unseen and usually unappreciated halo
of semi-authority that invests these acts or reports. And this
semi-authority is greatly increased in influence when the con
stituted officer and the members of the committees are the
leaders among their fellow-delegates in debate, deliberation,
conversation and writing. Such was the condition in Mis
souri's first constitutional convention.
This ascendancy of the committee in the Missouri con
vention of 1820 is conclusively proven by the few changes made
by that convention in the constitution as reported by the com
mittees. Of the thirty-three measures introduced on which
no votes were recorded, twenty-nine were important. Of these
twenty-nine measures, eighteen were finally incorporated in
the constitution. Of the sixty-eight measures introduced on
which the votes were recorded, forty-eight were important.
Of these forty-eight measures, only eight new ones were incor
porated in the constitution. Thus of the hundreds of clauses
in the original constitution as reported by the committees,
only twenty-six measures were amended or added to.
The greatest statesman, the leading and one of the most
skillful politicians, the ablest orator and debater and the most
popular public man in Missouri in 1820, was chosen president
of the convention. Both by virtue of his position and of his
talents, David Barton was the leading spirit and the most
influential man in the convention. He was given the power
of appointing all committees and this power was never limited
by the delegates. Possessed of such authority, endowed with
great ability, and having an inclination to exercise both, Barton
exerted a most significant influence in the drafting and adopting
of many provisions in the constitution. If to one man were to
be accorded the honor of drafting the Missouri constitution of
1820, that man would be David Barton. As a singular proof
of Barton's influence even on the floor of the convention is the
fact that his vote on a constitutional measure was practically

204 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
identical with the adoption or rejection of that measure. Fur
ther, an analysis of the voting based on whether the votes cast
were Barton or anti-Barton votes, gives the same results and
divides the delegates into the same four classes as are obtained
when the votes are analyzed from the standpoint of their being
successful or unsuccessful votes on constitutional measures.
Associated with Barton in framing the constitution in the
committees were seven of his friends, John Rice Jones, John
D. Cook, Edward Bates, James Evans, John Scott, Jonathan
Smith Findlay, and, to some extent, Jonathan Ramsay.'*
The first five of these were la'svyers ; Findlay was a schoolmaster-
politician; and Ramsay, a successful farmer, a shrewd business
man and a politician combined: all were aspirants for political
honors. These men were not only active on the floor of the
convention but, excepting Scott, they filled all the places on
the two principal constitutional committees, and two of them
held the chairmanship of the two most important minor com
mittees." Of the forty-one delegates Jones was easily the most learned,
the most highly educated, the most accomplished, and perhaps
the most successful financially. One of the oldest men in the
convention, Jones possessed the best trained and the deepest
mind in that body. It is, therefore, not surprising that Barton
appointed him chairman of the select committee, the first
and only committee to draft a complete constitution for Mis
souri in 1820 that was printed and discussed by the conven-

i» Although these men did not vote together on all measures, they had many
views in common and were friends. Ramsay was, perhaps, less under the sway
of Barton than any of the seven. Jones was more of a coUeague than a lieutenant
of Barton. ¦ • The flrst four committees appointed to draft a constitution were of no
importance. Their reports were never read by the convention or printed. The
select committee was given practicaUy unlimited power in changing these reports.
We also do not regard the land comnuttee on the permanent seat of government,
composed of Cook of Ste. Genevieve, Pratte and Dawson, of any importance in
regard to the authorship of the constitution, since this report was tabled and never
later considered. The committee on enroUment was purely a clerical body that
was created simply to see that the constitution was correctly engrossed and en
roUed as it had been passed. The membership of this committee was the same
as that of the committee on style except that Findlay was chairman of the former
and Bates of the latter.

Authorship of the Missouri Constitution. 205
tion.2" The constitution reported by this committee was the
ground plan that guided the delegates in framing and adopting
Missouri's first constitution. Jones was also appointed chair
man of the committee on schedule and banking, whose report
was largely adopted by the convention so far as it related to
purely schedule provisions and to the permanent seat of govern-
ment.2' The co-workers of Jones on the select committee were
Evans, John D. Cook and Ramsay. The appointment of Evans
to this committee was, we believe, largely a result of Barton's
friendship for him. Both were boon companions, both enjoyed
the cup, both were able lawyers and were about the same age,
and both were at this time very popular in Missouri. It is
a sad commentary on the lives of Barton and Evans that both
later became mental and financial wrecks. The logical delegate
for Evan's place on the select committee was General William
V. Rector, the chairman of the original committee on the
executive department. Barton and his friends probably did
not trust Rector or could not rely on his support. The fatal
rupture between these men may have had its inception about
this time. Just three years and one week after the appoint
ment of the select committee, Joshua Barton, elder brother of
David, was killed by T. C. Rector, brother of William V., in a
duel, which was caused by the former charging General Rector
of corruption in office: and one year and one day later through
the efforts of Senator Barton, General William V. Rector was
dishonorably dismissed from office by the head of the United
States General Land Office, acting on order of the President of
the United States.^^
The appointment of John D. Cook was also a pleasant and
politic act of Barton's. The logical appointee for Cook's place
was Judge Richard S. Thomas, chairman of the original com-

" Jones had previously been appointed chairman of the legislative committee,
one of the four committees whose reports were handed over to the select com
mittee. " The other members of the schedule committee were Houts and McFerron.
Judging from the barren results that McFerron obtained on the fioor of the con
vention, it is not probable that he was able to thwart Jones on this committee.
Little Is known of Houts except that he was a merchant at this time.
'-i Edwards Great West, p. 332; Mo. Intell, July 31, 1824.

206 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
mittee on the judiciary. Thomas' insurgent activity in trying
to get the reports of the four original committees read before
the convention was undoubtedly displeasing to the self-appointed
leaders of that body. On the other hand, John D. Cook was
loyal, was endowed with great ability, and with the aid of his
elder brother, Nathaniel, who was also a delegate, wielded a
remarkable influence.^' Although a young man, being barely
thirty years old, John D. Cook was the only delegate that was
a member of both the select committee and the committee on
style. He was also preeminent among the delegates in holding
the largest number of constitution committee places, being a
member of four committees and chairman of another,^* and in
being one of the two delegates later appointed to the Supreme
Court of Missouri.^' John Cook and Scott shared the distinc
tion of being the only delegates who ranked foremost in the
convention in being introducers of adopted measures on which
no votes were recorded, in being introducers of adopted measures
on which votes were recorded, and in being leaders in casting
successful votes.
While Evans and John Cook worked in harmony with
Barton, as is easily seen in a survey of the votes recorded in the
Journal on the most important measures of the constitution,
Ramsay seems to have maintained an independent attitude
toward the lawyer junto. In fact, it is difficult to ascertain
why General Jonathan Ramsay was appointed on the select
committee instead of General Duff Green.^* This may have

>' Both Evans and the Cooks were consistent supporters of Barton.
" Member of original judiciary committee, select committee, committee on
style, committee on enroUment: chairman of pubUc land committee on permanent
seat of government.
" Cook was appointed one of the flrst three judges of the Supreme Court of
Missouri in 1820 by Governor McNair and again in 1822, after a constitutional
amendment had passed that vacated the Supreme and Circtut Court Judgeships.
He resigned in 1823 and in 1825 was appointed to the southern circuit of Missouri
after its former incumbent. Richard S. Thomas, had been impeached. It is
interesting to note that Thomas' chief advocate in his impeachment trial was
John D. Cook. (Mo. Gazette, Dec. 6. 1820; Mo. Intell, Dec. 31. 1822, Feb. 1,
1825; Houck, op. cit.. Ill, 10.)
" The original committee on the biU of rights, etc., was composed of Ramsay,
Hammond and Green. One of these was to be appointed on the select committee :
Barton chose Ramsay. Hammond was an impossible appointee owing to the
selection of Jones, Evans and Cook, who all came from counties lying south of
the Missouri River. It would have been obviously impolitic to have appointed

Authorship of the Missouri Constitution, 207
been done by Barton for fear that Ramsay, who really deserved
the place, would otherwise feel insulted and wield his great
influence in opposing important measures of the leaders.^'
If this was the purpose of Barton and his friends, of placating
Ramsay, it was only partly successful.^* Ramsay's activity in
the convention was directed towards realizing the wishes of his
pioneer constituents, regardless of the approbation or criticism
of the St. Louis and south-east Missouri delegates. Ramsay
tried, however, to have struck out the thirty year minimum
age qualification for judges. This was entirely for the advan
tage of Bates who was only twenty-six years of age at that time
and who was a very probable candidate for appointment to the
Supreme Court bench, if Governor Clark were elected.^' Green
was also under thirty years of age but was more inclined towards
business than law. However, the machinery and the mind of
the convention when opposed to Ramsay, was successful, and
his influence was relatively small in the framing of the consti
tution. In striking contrast to Ramsay was the youthful Edward
Bates. The latter had not yet attained the age of twenty-
seven years, and under the constitution that he was so instru-

the fourth member of this committee from that section. It was essential to have
on the select committee at least one representative of the northern pioneer coun
ties. Ramsay was perhaps a stronger man for the place than Green. Ramsay
was at this time forty-five years old. possessed a commanding personaUty, and
had great business abiUty. His military and civil record in Kentucky was dis
tinguished, and, despite his lack of education, he was a leader not to be ignored
or antagonized. Besides, Ramsay was the type of man who could cast more
votes on the floor than in the committee. Green, on the other hand, was only
twenty-nine years old, and although a man of good education and a member of
the bar, had the faculty of making enemies faster than friends. Even in his own
county, Howard, Green by his fearlessness and his many enterprises had aroused
much opposition. Green was also not pleasing to the St. Louis poUticians in
his stand for very conservative guards being imposed on stockholders of the state
bank. He was. however, the superior of Ramsay in versatility and intellect, and
later played an important part in the nation's history.
•' Ramsay was so outvoted on this committee that he was helpless in thwart
ing the will of Barton and others, and his appointment was no risk in this respect.
'• Ramsay opposed the following important measures that were advocated
by the lawyer leaders: $2,000.00 salary for the governor (J., p. 20); a court of
Chancery, composed on one Chancellor (J., pp. 23, 40, 41); high salary for judges
(J., p. 24); state bank (J., pp. 29, 30); and favored individual responsibility of
stockholders of state bank (J., p. 30) and viva voce voting (J., p. 38), both of which
were opposed by Barton and some of his friends.
"Journal, p. 41.

208 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
mental in framing he was in 1820 disqualified by his youth from
being governor, lieutenant-governor, state senator, judge of a
circuit court, supreme court judge, or chancellor. Despite his
age Bates was appointed as chairman of the committee on style,
which in importance ranked next to, if it did not equal, the
select committee. By order of the convention every article
and section of the constitution after passing through the com
mittee of the whole was entrusted to this committee for proper
revision. Its impress was, therefore, left on every part of that
instrument. In appointing Bates at the head of the committee
on style Barton not only filled an important place with a devoted
friend and admirer but also with a remarkably gifted politician
and lawyer. A man of high ideals, strong character, well-
poised independence, fearless courage, and of almost unlimited
intellectual capacity. Bates was a fitting choice to do the last
constructive work on Missouri's first constitution and to perfect
and polish that document for future generations.'"
The other members of the committee on style, John D.
Cook and Jonathan Smith Findlay, were also exceptionally
able men. The latter, who alone of these three has not been
considered, was a man of fine education, rare intellectual at
tainments, and high moral principles. Engaged at this time in
school teaching, Findlay appears to have wielded considerable
influence in the Boone's Lick county, and was greatly respected
for his ability as a writer and for his courage as a man." His
last public office was that of register of the land office at Lex
ington, Missouri, which he held until two years before his death.
Three of his brothers were Congressmen from Pennsylvania
and Ohio, and one held the two highest offices in the gift of the
former state, being elected Governor and later United States
Senator.'^ Findlay enjoyed the full confidence of Barton and
was appointed on two other committees, being chairman of both
the committee on enrollment and the very important committee
on a state bank and branches. The reports of both these com-

'• Besides being appointed on the committee on style. Bates was also a member
of the original committee on the judiciary and of the committee on enrollment.
"Mo. Intell, July 16, 1819; Mar. 19, 1821; Nov. 10, 1832.
"Ibid., Nov. 10, 1832.

Authorship of the Missouri Constitution. 209
mittees were adopted by the convention without further un
necessary change, a compliment to their makers. The mem
bers of the latter committee besides Findlay were Benjamin
H. Reeves of Howard and Colonel Thomas F. Riddick of St.
Louis. Reeves was one of the leading men in north Missouri,
was repeatedly elected state senator, and became Missouri's
second lieutenant-governor." Riddick was the greatest of the
founders of the St. Louis public school system. His official
career in Missouri began in 1804 and continued till his death
in 1830. He was probably the author of the article in the
constitution on the state bank, as his experience in that line
was more extended than that of either Findlay or Reeves.'*
Although a member of no committee, the Honorable John
Scott, a delegate from Ste. Genevieve, was very instrumental
in the drafting of one entire article and several important
sections of the constitution. To Scott belongs the great honor
of being the author of Missouri's excellent constitutional pro
visions relating to education." It was indeed appropriate
that a university graduate should have been permitted by for
tune to be the one who not only obtained the large grants of
public land that made possible the establishment of a great
public school system of education in Missouri with a state
university at its head but who also drafted and had adopted the
fundamental provisions in that commonwealth's first constitu
tion that safeguarded the treasures and encouraged their eco
nomic conservation, on which Missouri's present free public
school system and state university were founded.'* And, if we
may be pardoned for a digression, equally appropriate was it
that another university graduate, James S. Rollins, was later
given the honor of fathering the bill that created the university
that had been so carefully provided for by Missouri's last terri
torial Delegate and her first United States Representative in

"Official Manual Mo., 1913-14, pp. 103, 150fl; Mo. Intell, Oct. 3. 1835.
"BiUon, op. cil, pp. 188f; Edwards Great West, pp. 309ff; Mo. Gazelle, April
20, 1820, May 3, 1820, May 12, 1821; Darby, op. cil, pp. 14, 18; Houck, op cil,
II. pp. 383, 418, III. pp. 49, 71, 103. Riddick had been the largest stockholder
and was the second president of the old Missouri Bank of St. Louis.
'•J., p. 38.
" Scott graduated from Princeton University in 1802.
M S — 14

210 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
Congress. Scott was also the author of an important provision
in the constitution that imposed a limitation on gerrymandering
in the establishing of senatorial districts." He also secured
the adoption of a clause that disqualified United States soldiers
and sailors in regular service from voting in this state,'* and
was the author of that section of the constitution that pro
vided for the compensation of the members of the legislature."
Together with John D. Cook, Scott secured the adoption of
that section of the constitution that provided for the temporary
seat of government.*" On this last measure, the voting was
sectional: all the St. Louis and the northern county delegates
except three were opposed by all the southern representatives
except one. Even Barton's and Bates' friends, as John Cook,
Evans, Scott, Jones, and many others aligned themselves on
this proposition against St. Louis and her politicians, and
succeeded in leaving the question of the temporary seat of
government an open one in the hands of the legislature instead
¦of deciding in favor of St. Louis, which had been previously
selected by the convention. On other questions, Scott voted
with the lawyers as a rule. Considering the few days that
Scott's name appears among the ayes and nays, he was re
markably active and successful in the convention.*'
As a politician and a lawyer, John Scott was able, con
scientious, and popular. Although not a brilliant speaker like
Barton or even Bates, he was a formidable opponent in debate.
His superior education, scholarly habits, his perfect mastery
of law and history, his attention to details, and his moral
scruples, frequently enabled him to overcome more gifted
orators and advocates. His friendship for Barton and Benton
was a close one, and Benton's rupture with him over the Adams-
Jackson contest inflicted a cruel wound to both.
The framing of Missouri's constitution of 1820 was not the
work of one man. The principal authors were Barton, Bates,
"J., p. 34.
" IMd.
"Ibid., p. 36.
"J., pp. 45f.
" Scott's name does not appear in the aye and nay voting untU July 11th,
on which day the convention began the consideration of the report of the com
mittee on style. (J., pp. 33fl.)

Authorship of the Missouri Constitution. 211
John Cook, Jones, Findlay and Scott. These six delegates
held first place as introducers of measures, as voters in the con
vention, and as members of the three most important com
mittees — the select committee, the committee on style, and the
committee on a state bank. Barton was the leader both of the
legally organized convention and of the political machine of
that body. He wielded, therefore, the most important influence
of all the delegates on the constitution. Bates, John Cook,
Jones and Findlay, were the great organizers and committeemen
of the convention. Scott was the one conspicuous delegate
who, not holding a committee place, was able to accomplish
things on the floor of the convention. Of these six delegates,
five were lawyers, and one, Findlay, was a pedagogue-politician.
All were remarkably able men. They later held political posi
tions ranging in importance from that of register of a land office
to that of United States Senator and of United States cabinet
official. The next set of delegates in importance was Evans, Ramsay,
Riddick, Reeves, Rector and Green. Their impress on the
constitution was, however, comparatively slight. Some were
followers of the "organization;" several were independent but
not hostile to the leaders. All were able men and were ambitious.
Their biographies reveal six successful politicians who held
offices ranging from that of state representative to that of
national political boss.
The third class of delegates who may possibly have influenced
the framing of the constitution was Buckner, Perry and Ham
mond. These three delegates were leaders of the opposition.
They were seemingly unable to accomplish much, but it is not
improbable that some compromise measures were adopted
through their influence. These men were well equipped both
in ability and in experience. Their success in the convention
was not, however, striking. The "machine" under the direc
tion of the leaders was able to accomplish nearly everything
it desired. Barton, Bates, John Cook, Jones, Findlay and Scott,
were the principal authors of the constitution of Missouri of
1820.

CHAPTER VHI.
ORIGIN AND CONTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.'
The purpose of this chapter is to give an account of the
origin and to analyze the content of the Missouri constitution
of 1820. The origin of the Missouri constitution of 1820 will
be considered by comparing its "Preamble" and thirteen articles
with similar provisions of the then existing twenty-three state
constitutions and the constitution of the United States. The
special features of the Missouri constitution that were excep
tional in character, will also be set forth. The analysis of the
content of the constitution will consist of dividing it into its
logical parts in conformity with the accepted principles governing
the present science of government. The Missouri constitution
of 1820 followed the normal type of state constitutions and in
general conformed with the accepted scientific principles gov
erning such organic acts. Few detailed provisions found their
way into this constitution. It was a model of conciseness and
perspicuity, dealing only in broad, general statements. It was
essentially a constitution framed by a sovereign convention,
and not a volume of purely ordinary legislative provisions that
characterize so many modern state instruments. Owing to its
merits in this respect, the Missouri constitution of 1820 lends
itself to a simultaneous discussion of its origin and its content.^
In tracing the origin of the Missouri constitution of 1820
and in estimating the influence exerted on it by other constitu
tions caution is required. This is on account of several things:
first, verbatim copies in this constitution of sections in other
constitutions were the exception; second, even when such copies
occur they were sometimes the common property of several
states; and third, most of the sections in this constitution.

' For copy of the constitution see Appendix III.
' This chapter is based on a much more detailed thesis submitted by the
author in 1911 to the University of Missouri in partial fulffllment of the require
ments for the degree of Master of Arts. The title of this thesis is: "The First
Constitution of Missouri. A study of its Origin, by Floyd Calvin Shoemaker."
References here to this work will be given to Shoemaker.
(212)

Origin and Content of the Constitution. 213
although similar to sections in other constitutions, were rarely
confined to any one state but appeared here and there throughout
the Union and were frequently found in a majority of state con
stitutions. Because of this it is extremely hazardous to say
unqualifiedly that this or that state constitution was the source
of a certain provision in the Missouri constitution.
The Missouri constitution of 1820, excluding the schedule,
naturally divides itself into three parts: a preamble; a defini
tion of boundaries; and a frame of government, its powers and
limitations — the latter including a bill of rights.
The preamble to the Missouri constitution of 1820 was
unique. No state constitution of that time contained a pro
totype of it. In no other preamble were found the words "a
free and independent republic." The framing and adopting of
state constitutions by representatives of the people in con
vention assembled was widespread, although the practice of
adoption or ratification by the people was gaining ground. In
this respect Missouri followed the former rule. Some of the
preambles attached to the constitutions of other states were
long, others short. Some followed the pattern of the United
States constitution, while others gave thanks to God or epito
mized man's natural rights. The constitutions of Kentucky,
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, bear the closest
resemblance to the Missouri constitution on this point.'
The definition of the boundaries of Missouri was set forth
in article I, on "Boundaries." This was a verbatim copy of
that part of the Missouri Enabling Act that prescribed what
the boundaries of Missouri should be.*
The frame of government, its powers and limitations, laid
down in the Missouri constitution of 1820, was provided for in
twelve articles. These articles treated "Of The Distribution
Of Powers," "Of The Legislative Power," "Of The Executive
Power," "Of The Judicial Power," "Of Education," "Of In
ternal Improvement," "Of Banks," "Of The Militia," "Of
Miscellaneous Provisions," "Of The Permanent Seat of Gov
ernment," of the "Mode Of Amending The Constitution," and

• Shoemaker, pp. 17f.
' Cf., supra. Chapter II.

214 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
of a "Declaration of Rights." Some of these provisions were
not fundamental and did not properly belong in a constitu
tion, being rather administrative and legislative in character
than organic.
The constitution set forth the general principle of the
frame of government of the new State in Article II, on "Of The
Distribution Of Powers." This principle was that the powers
of government should be divided into three distinct depart
ments. Each department was to be confided to a separate
magistracy. No person charged with the exercise of powers
properly belonging to one of these departments, was to exercise
any power properly belonging to either of the others, except
where expressly directed or permitted by the constitution.
The conception of a separation of the powers of govern
ment into three distinct departments had become so deeply
imbedded in American political ideals by 1820, that it is not
surprising to find it inserted in the first constitution of Missouri.
One authority has said, "the classification of governmental
powers into three is as old as Aristotle." ' This classification
was given a theoretical expression by Montesquieu and Black
stone in the eighteenth century.* Later it was incorporated
and concisely expressed in a majority of the early state constitu
tions of the Revolutionary Period. Of these instruments the
1780 constitution of Massachusetts is the classic example.
Although omitted from the Articles of Confederation, this clas
sification received strength and authority by becoming one of
the working principles of the National Government as set forth
in the constitution of the United States.
The expression given this concept in the Missouri constitu
tion of 1820, resembles most the language of the constitutions
of Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana
and Mississippi. Both the subject matter and the form of this
article resembles closely the corresponding provision in the
constitutions of Kentucky and Illinois.'
' Foster on the Constitution, I. 299. For full account see chap. III. par. 42-45.
Also, Dunnings, "Political Theories, Ancient and Mediaeval," p. 96. The quota
tion given above should be somewhat liniited as it is not entirely correct.
' Story on the Constitution, I. chap. VII. pp. 388-406. Dunning, "Political
Theories from Luther to Montesquieu," pp. 412fl.
' Shoemaker, pp. 20f.

Origin and Content of the Constitution. 215
The legislative department took primacy over the executive
and judicial departments in the Missouri constitution of 1820.
This primacy found expression by placing the legislative de
partment first in order of arrangement, by devoting a larger
portion of the constitution to it than to the other two depart
ments, and by making it more powerful than they. The legis
lative department was not only the strongest of the three branches
of government both in its residuary and expressed powers and
in its indefinite sphere of control over its two "co-ordinates,"
but it was endowed with the more important function of acting,
under certain limitations, as the legal organization of its sover
eign — the people of Missouri. Occupying such prominence,
possessed of such power, and endowed with such potentialities,
the legislative department set forth in the Missouri constitution
of 1820 deserves a more extended treatment than either the
executive or the judicial department.
The legislative power was vested in a body called the
"General Assembly." This body was organized on the bi
cameral basis. It consisted of a "Senate" and a "House of
Representatives." Perhaps no principle of our government
has received more general acceptance in the United States than
that of a bicameral legislature. It had long been a fundamental
rule of political science for the English people. It was carried
over into the colonial governments more or less generally, and,
with the exception of Vermont, Pennsylvania and Georgia, it
was incorporated into all the constitutions of the Revolutionary
Period. Like in many other ways, the Articles of Confederation
proved an exception to this idea. It received recognition,
however, and became of more binding force by being plainly
set forth in the United States constitution. Pennsylvania and
Georgia soon adopted it and by 1820 only one state, Vermont,
still retained a unicameral legislature. Having such a strong
foundation in practice as well as in theory, its expression in
section 1, article III of the Missouri constitution is easily ac
counted for.* This section in its brevity and language recalls
the corresponding section in the United States constitution.'

'Story on the Constitution, Ch. VIII. 407-422; Shoemaker, pp. 22f.
• U. S. Consl, I. 1.

216 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
When compared with the other state constitutions, those of
Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi and South Carolina, are substantially identical with
Missouri's on this section. The constitutions of Illinois, In
diana, Ohio, Tennessee and Maine, also bear a close resemblance
to it. The constitutions of Kentucky and Delaware were prob
ably the most influential in its framing both as regards terms
used and general expression.'"
The two houses were organized upon the general principle
of popular representation, except that each county was to have
at least one representative in the lower chamber. This general
principle was that the members of both chambers should be
apportioned according to the number of free', white, male in
habitants in the several districts and counties." This principle
was applied to the house of representatives by limiting the
maximum number of representatives to one hundred and by
guaranteeing to each county at least one representative. The
general assembly was commanded to apportion the number of
representatives among the several counties at its first session
and again in 1822, 1824 and every four years thereafter on the
basis of the state census returns made on those years. The
first general assembly had forty-three representatives. This
number was gradually increased as new counties were formed
and as population grew.'^ The principle of popular representa
tion was applied to the senate with only two limitations on the
power of the general assembly. The number of senators was
not to be less than fourteen nor more than thirty-three. Further
when the general assembly divided the state into senatorial
districts, no county was to be divided, and no county in one
district was to be separated from another county in that district
by a county lying in a different district." The general assembly
was not restricted to districting the State for senators on certain
years as in the case of representatives. It appears that the

'• Shoemaker, pp. 22f.
" Mo. Consl, III. 4, 6.
" Ibid.
" Mo. Consl, III. 6.

Origin and Content of the Constitution. 217
schemes of apportionment for both houses were copied from
the Kentucky Constitution.'*
The tenure of members of the general assembly was elective."
This was the universal rule in all the states for members of
both houses.'* The electors at all elections, as set forth in the
Missouri constitution, were limited to free white male citizens
of the United States who had attained the age of twenty-one
years and who had resided in the state one year and in the county
three months preceeding an election. Soldiers and sailors in
the United States army or na'vy were disqualified." These
qualifications and disqualifications relating to electors were
copied verbatim from the Alabama constitution.'* After
January 1, 1822, all general elections were to be held biennially
on the first Monday in August and the electors, in all cases
except treason, felony or breach of the peace, were privileged
from arrest in attending the elections and in going to and re
turning from them.'" Special elections could be called by writ
of the governor to fill vacancies in either house of the legislature.
The term of representatives was two years ; and of senators,
four years. ^" The same term for representatives obtained in
only four states, — Illinois, Louisiana, South Carolina and Ten
nessee.^' Seven states provided a four year term for senators, —
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New York, South Carolina,
Virginia, and Pennsylvania.^^ While the House changed every
two years, the Senate was a continuous body. The Missouri
constitution provided that at the first session of the general
assembly the senators should be divided by lot into two classes.
One class was to serve two years, the other four years, so that

'< Shoemaker, pp. 28, 31.
"Mo. Consl, III. 2, 5.
¦• Shoemaker, p. 24.
"Mo. Consl, III. 10.
'¦ Shoemaker, pp. 35f.
•.'Mo. Const., III. 8, 9; Shoemaker, pp. 33f. These provisions, which were
really poUtical Umitations on the power of the general assembly, were taken from
the constitution of Illinois.
"Mo. Const, III. 2, 5.
" Shoemaker, pp. 24f. A one year term was the rule in the other states.
" Ibid., p. 29. Maryland provided for a flve year term; four states, for a
three year term; two states, for a two year term; and the remaining states for a
one year term.

218 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
one half of the senators would be chosen every second year.^'
This provision was probably taken from the Illinois constitution.^*
Compared with other states, Missouri prescribed high
qualifications for her legislators. The members of the House
had to possess or comply with five requisites. First, they
must have attained the age of twenty-four years. The consti
tutions of Delaware and Kentucky alone contained the same
age qualification, and only one State constitution, that of Ohio,
provided a higher one.^' Second, they must be "free white
male citizens of the United States." This qualification was set
forth expressly only in the constitution of Alabama and Louis
iana, and impliedly in the constitution of Kentucky. However,
the term "free white male" was quite general in practice.^*
Third, they must have resided in the State two years before
their election. This was followed in only five states, — Alabama,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina.^' Fourth,
they must have resided in the county which they represented
one year before their election. This county residence qualifi
cation was widespread in the southern states.^* Fifth, they
must have paid a state or county tax. This qualification was
followed in the constitutions of only three states, — Illinois,
Indiana and Ohio.^" It seems that the constitutions of Kentucky
and Illinois were the models used for defining the qualifications
of representatives. The qualifications for senators were similar to those for
representatives. The age and state residence qualifications
were, however, higher for the former. Senators were required
to be at least thirty years of age and to have resided in the state
at least four years preceding their election. The constitutions
of Ohio, South Carolina, and the United States, alone set forth
such a high age qualification for senators, and the state residence
qualification was this high in only three states, — Louisiana, Mis-
" Mo. Consl, III. 7.
" Shoemaker, p. 32.
"Mo. Const., III. 3: Shoemaker, pp. 25ff.
" IMd.
" Ibid.
'• Ibid.
" Ibid.

Origin and Content of the Constitution. 219
sissippi and Pennsylvania. It is probable that the constitutions
that exerted the most influence in defining the qualifications for
senators, were those of Kentucky, Illinois, Louisana and the
United States.'" Missouri in prescribing qualifications for her
law-makers followed those states that had prescribed high
requisites except as regards the possession of wealth.
The disqualifications that applied to members of the general
assembly were equally as numerous and, with one exception,
as advanced as were the qualifications. In general no person
was eligible to either house who held a lucrative office under the
United States, the State, or the county. Militia officers, jus
tices of the peace, and postmasters were excepted from this
general rule." Nearly all the state constitutions followed this
general rule.'^ Further, no collector of public money, or his
deputy, was eligible to either house or to any office of profit or
trust, until he had made an accurate and honest settlement of
such money." About half of the state constitutions had a
similar provision.'* Priests and preachers were also ineligible
to seats in the general assembly and to all offices of profit under
the State, except the office of justice of the peace." The con
stitution of Kentucky probably exerted the greatest influence
in the framing of this provision.'* The general assembly was
authorized to also exclude from all public state offices and from
tlie right of suffrage, all persons convicted of bribery, perjury
or other infamous crime." The disqualification on account of
crime was taken from either the Illinois or Kentucky consti tu-

"Mo. Const., III. 5; Shoemaker, pp. 29f.
» Mo. Consl, III. 11.
" Shoemaker, p. 37.
" Mo. Const., III. 12.
" Shoemaker, p. 37.
" Mo. Const., III. 13.
" Shoemaker, pp. 38f. This disquaUfication resting on clergymen was first
set forth in the constitution of Virginia of 1776. The author of that document
was Thomas Jefferson. He purposely set this limitation on the poUtical activity
of ecclesiastics. This was a result partly of his ideas on religion as gathered
from French philosophy and partly on account of the pecuUar position occupied
by the clergy in Virginia. The disqualification as expressed in the Virginia con
stitution excepted no offlce. This provision was probably copied from the Vir
ginia constitution by the people of Kentucky when they framed their fundamental
law but they modified it so as to except the office of justice of the peace. In this
latter form Missouri copied it.
" Mo. Const, III. 14, 15.

220 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
tion.'* The disqualification for bribery approached nearest to
similar provisions in the constitutions of Connecticut and Dela
ware. Few if any of the states went as far as did Missouri in
including so severe a corrupt practices act in their constitu
tions.'" Finally no member of the general assembly, during
his term of office, was qualified to be appointed to any civil
state office, which had been created or the emolument of which
had been increased during his term of office, except to such
offices as were elective.*" This disqualification resting on sen
ators and representatives for certain offices was rather wide
spread among the states.*'
The different qualifications and disqualifications for legis
lators set forth in the Missouri constitution, reveal in a degree
the advanced character of that organic law. The highest
requisites for eligibility in other states consistent with a demo
cratic government, were incorporated, and the strictest pro
visions in other constitutions regarding ineligibility were also
adopted. Ability and honesty were the qualities sought in
representatives and senators.
The privileges of senators and representatives consisted of
immunity from arrest, except in cases of treason, felony or breach
of the peace, during the session of the general assembly and for
fifteen days before and after each session. They were further
exempted from questioning in any other place for any speech
or debate made in either house. *^ The constitutions of a num
ber of the states contained provisions similar to these. The
United States constitution probably served as a pattern for all
in this respect.*' Closely associated with the privileges of mem
bers was their compensation. The amount of compensation was
not determined by the constitution. It was left under the control
of the legislature, but no increase was to take effect during the
session such increase had been made.** Many of the states at
that time followed the present rule of limiting the salary of its
" Shoemaker, p. 39.
"Ibid., p. 40.
"Mo. Consl, III. 16.
" Shoemaker, p. 41.
"Mo. Const, III. 23.
" Shoemaker, pp. 46f.
"Mo. Const, III. 24.

Origin and Content of the Constitution. 221
representatives and senators. Missouri patterned her pro
vision on this subject after the constitutions of Alabama, Dela
ware and Mississippi.*'
It was provided that the salary of the lieutenant governor,
or president of the senate pro tempore, while presiding in the
senate, should be the same as was allowed the speaker of the
house of representatives.** The amount of such compensation
was again left under the control of the general assembly. The
constitution of Kentucky was probably the pattern followed
in this respect.*'
The regular sessions of the general assembly were biennial
on even years. The first regular session was to be on the third
Monday of September, 1820; the next on the first Monday of
November, 1821 ; the next on the first Monday of November, 1822 ;
and thereafter once in every two years on the first Monday in
November. Power was, however, given the legislature to ap
point a different day. In all the states but two, Illinois and
Tennessee, the legislatures met in annual sessions. Missouri
followed these two states in adopting biennial meetings.**
Called or extra sessions were also provided for. On extra
ordinary occasions the governor was given power to convene
the general assembly in session by proclamation. The pur
poses of the session were to be set forth in the proclamation.
This was part of the legislative powers of the governor and was
possessed by the chief executives in fourteen states.*" Hasty
adjournment on the part of one house was guarded against by
providing that neither house should, without the consent of the
other, adjourn for more than two days at any one time, nor to
any other place than to that in which the two houses had been
sitting. Over half of the states had similar provisions regarding
adjournment.'" The purely internal organization of the general assembly
was determined partly by the constitution and was left partly

" Shoemaker, p. 47.
"Mo. Const, IV. 18.
" Shoemaker, p. 75.
" Mo. Const, III. 33; Shoemaker, p. 56.
"Mo. Const, IV. 7; Shoemaker, p. 67.
"Mo. Const,, III. 20; Shoemaker, p. 45.

222 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
to the two houses. Each house was given the power to judge
of the qualifications and elections of its own members and to
appoint its own officers, except that the lieutenant governor
by virtue of his office was president of the senate." The pre
siding officer of the senate next in rank was the president pro
tempore, who was elected by that body. The presiding officer
of the house was the speaker, who was also elected.'^ All these
officers, their names and duties, are met with in most of the
state constitutions of that day. The constitution prescribed
that a majority of each house should constitute a quorum to
do business, but a smaller number might adjourn from day to
day and might compel the attendance of absent members."
A number of state constitutions laid down almost identical
rules.'* Each house was given power to determine the rules
of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior,
and, with the concurrence of two- thirds of all the members
elected, expel a member; but no member should be expelled a
second time for the same cause. Each house was required to
publish a journal of its proceedings, except such parts as might,
in their opinion, require secrecy, and the yeas and nays on any
question were to be entered on the journal at the desire of any
two members." Most of these regulations were set forth in
a majority of the other state constitutions, and it is impossible
to determine which one exerted the most influence in the framing
of the Missouri constitution.'* The constitution further provided
that the doors of each house, and of committees of the whole,
should be kept open, except in cases that might require secrecy.
This provision regarding publicity of the legislature's proceed
ings was probably copied from the Illinois constitution." Finally,
each house was given the power to punish, by a fine not exceeding
three hundred dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding forty-
eight hours for one offense, any person not a member for dis-
" Mo. Consl, III. 17; IV. 15. This power of the state legislatures over the
appointment of their offlcers was in general use over the nation.
"Mo. Const, IV. 18.
"Mo. Consl, III. 17.
" Shoemaker, p. 42.
" Mo. Const, III. 18.
•• Shoemaker, pp. 42f.
"Mo. Const, III. 19; Shoemaker, p. 43

Origin and Content of the Constitution. 223
orderly or contemptuous behavior in the presence of and during
the session of that house.'* In this last respect the Missouri
constitution went further than any other. No other state
constitution expressly granted to the legislature the power to
"fine" those, not members, for contempt of authority of that
body. The essential features of legislative process were laid down
in the constitution. It was provided that bills might originate
in either house and might be altered, amended or rejected, by
the other house. Every bill was to be read on three different
days in each house unless two-thirds of the house where the bill
was pending dispensed with this rule. Having passed both
houses, every bill was to be signed by the speaker of the house
of representatives and by the president of the senate.'" Before
becoming a law, every bill must be presented to the governor
for his approbation. If he signed it, it became a law. If he
did not approve it, he was to return it together with his ob
jections to the house of its inception. This house was to enter
his objections on its journal and then proceed to reconsider the
bill. If on a recorded aye and nay vote, a majority of the
members elected to each house, voting separately, agreed to
pass the bill over the governor's veto, it was to become a law.
Further, if the governor failed to return a bill within ten days
(Sunday excepted) after it had been presented to him, the bill
was to become a law unless the general assembly had adjourned
in the meantime.*" Every joint resolution of the general as
sembly, except in cases of adjournment, was also to be presented
to the governor, and was subject to the same regulations as
obtained in the case of a bill.*' Finally it was provided that
the style of the laws of the State should be: "Be it enacted
by the general assembly of the state of Missouri." *^ These
essential features of legislative process, many of which obtained

•• Mo. Const, III. 19; Shoemaker, pp. 43f.
"Mo. Const, III. 21.
"Mo. Const, IV. 10.
•' Mo. Const, IV. 11; Shoemaker, pp. 70f.
" Mo. Const, III. 36. An identical provision was contained in the consti
tutions of Indiana. Maryland, Ohio, Tennessee, and Vermont. (Shoemaker,
p. 58.)

224 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
in other states, were probably copied from the constitutions of
Illinois and Kentucky.*'
The powers of the general assembly were broad. They
embraced general legislative, delegated legislative, executive
and judicial powers. The general legislative power or general
law-making power was vested in the general assembly by the
first section of article three of the constitution. This power
was and still is vested in the legislature in every state. The
delegated legislative powers of the general assembly consisted
in the main of specific grants of power to legislate over certain
subjects. Some of these grants were set forth in the article
dealing with the legislature and others in separate articles.
The general assembly was commanded to direct, by law,
in what manner, and in what courts, suits could be brought
against the State.** Only four state constitutions expressly
gave this power to the legislature.*' The general assembly
was commanded to pass laws to prevent free negroes and mu-
lattoes from coming to and settling in Missouri; and to oblige
slave-owners to treat their slaves humanely.** Further re
garding slavery, the general assembly was given power to pass
laws to prohibit the introduction of any slave who had com
mitted a high crime in another state ; to prohibit the introduction
of any slave for the purpose of speculation or as an article of
trade or merchandise; to prohibit the introduction of a slave,
or a slave's offspring, that had been illegally imported into the
United States; and to permit slave-owners to emancipate their
slaves, saving the rights of creditors, provided the emancipators
gave security that the emancipated slaves would not become
public charges.*' These provisions relating to slavery legisla
tion, except the free negro and mulatto clause, were probably
copied from the constitution of Alabama. The free negro
clause was unique among constitutional provisions of that day,
•« Shoemaker, pp. 45, 70.
" Mo. Const, III. 25.
«' Shoemaker, p. 48. The four states were Alabama, Delaware, Kentucky,
and Mississippi. Tennessee limited this right of bringing suits against the state
to the citizens of Tennessee.
" Mo. Const, III. 26.
" IMd.

Origin and Content of the Constitution. 225
it was also remarkable for the great discord it later caused in
Congress during the winter of 1820-1821.** Power was given
the general assembly to change the tenure of the sheriff and
coroner.*" About half the states followed the elective tenure
principle for these local officers, and half the appointive tenure.'"
The duties of the attorney general were placed under the regula
tion of the legislature. This was the rule in a majority of the
states." The delegated legislative powers of the general assembly
over the judiciary of the State were important. These powers
were purely legislative and did not involve judicial powers.
One of the most important of this class of powers was that of
regulating, under certain constitutional restrictions, the juris
diction of the courts. This principle of judicial regulation by
the legislature was followed by a number of the states. The
form in which it was incorporated in the Missouri constitution
shows the influence of the constitutions of Alabama, Delaware
and Kentucky.'^ Another important class of legislative powers
over the judiciary was that of districting the State and of
determining the place and time, for sessions of the courts.
These last powers were subject to few restrictions. They seem
to have been copied from the constitutions of Alabama, Delaware
and Louisiana." The general assembly was also empowered
to establish inferior courts. No restriction was placed on this
power. In practically all the states the legislature was ex
pressly given this power.'*
The delegated legislative powers of the general assembly
also included important provisions relating to education, in
ternal improvement, banks, the permanent seat of government,
and the mode of amending the constitution. Each of these
commanded a separate article.
The general assembly was given practically unlimited
control over the education of the State. Schools were to be

•• Shoemaker, p. 50.
•• Mo. Const, IV. 23.
" Shoemaker, p. 80.
"Mo. Const, V. 18; Shoemaker, p. 99.
"Mo. Const, V. 2, 6, 10, 11, 17; Shoemaker, pp. 87ff, 91fl, 98f.
'¦ Mo. Const, V. 5, 6, 7, 9, 17; Shoemaker, pp. 88ff., 91, 98f.
"Mo. Const, V. 1; Shoemaker, p. 86.
M S— 15

226 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
encouraged and the national public school lands in each township
were to be preserved for their use. One public school or more
was to be established in each township as soon as practicable,
where education was to be free to the poor. A state university
was to be established and supported from the proceeds of a fund
derived principally from the seminary lands granted by the United
States. The purpose of this university was for the promotion
of literature, and of the arts and science. Both the lands and
the funds and endowments of the university were under the
control of the general assembly and were to be safeguarded for
the use and benefit of that institution. These educational
provisions were related to those in other constitutions. A ma
jority of the states had some constitutional provisions relating
to education. These provisions differed greatly. The older
states naturally said nothing of United States school lands and
few said anything regarding a state university. In many of
the newly created states such provisions were not placed in
the constitutions but in the enabling act of Congress or in the
state's acceptance of same. The state constitutions that seem
to have been the most influential in the framing of the Missouri
educational provisions, were those of Alabama and Indiana —
both being practically identical with the Missouri constitution."
Internal improvements were to be encouraged by the state
government. The power of the general assembly in this field
was practically unlimited. One of its duties was to ascertain
the most proper objects of both road and water improvements.
The general assembly was also directed to make an economic
and systematic application of the funds appropriated for these
purposes. The constitution of Alabama contained provisions
practically identical with these.'*
The delegated power of the general assembly over the es
tablishing of a state bank was restricted. A conservative state
banking policy was adopted. The constitution of only two
states, Alabama and Indiana, had similar provisions on this
subject and neither so safeguarded the state's finances as did
"Mo. Const, VI.; Shoemaker, pp. I03fl.
"Mo. Const, VIL; Shoemaker, p. 106.

Origin and Content of the Constitution, 227
Missouri." The general assembly of Missouri was given power
to incorporate only one banking company to be in operation
at the same time. The general assembly could establish not
exceeding five branches for this state bank and only one branch
could be established at any one session of the general assembly.
The capital stock of the state bank was not to exceed five mil
lions of dollars, at least one-half of which was to be reserved
for the use of the State.'*
A certain amount of delegated legislative power relating
to the militia was granted the general assembly. It was given
power to change the tenure of those officers of the militia, ex
cepting the oificers of the staff, who were not appointed by the
governor. The nearest approach to such a provision was a
section in the constitutions of Tennessee and Indiana.'" Most
of the states, however, had similar provisions on this subject.
The authority of the general assembly over the permanent
seat of government was set forth in a separate article, con
sisting of four sections. The general assembly, at its first ses
sion, was authorized to appoint five commissioners, one from
each extreme part of the State and one from the center, for the
purpose of selecting a place for the permanent seat of govern
ment. The duty of these commissioners was to select four
sections of the land of the United States that had not been ex
posed to public sale. If the commissioners decided that the
four sections of United States land so selected were not suitable,
they were empowered to select such other place as they did re
gard would be proper, and they were to report on the second loca
tion at the time of their report on the first. No place was to be
selected, however, that was not situated on the Missouri River
and was not within forty miles of the mouth of the Osage River.
The concurrence of at least three of the commissioners was neces
sary for all decisions made by them. To the general assembly
was given the power of making final decision. If the latter
body accepted the first location the commissioners were author
ized to lay out a town thereon under the direction of the general
assembly; if the general assembly accepted the second location.

" Shoemaker, pp. 107ff.
'• Mo. Const, VIII.
'• Shoemaker, p. 110; Mo. Const. IX.

228 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
the general assembly was empowered to authorize the commis
sioners to purchase any quantity of land, not exceeding six
hundred and forty acres, for this purpose. The place selected was
to be the permanent seat of government of Missouri from and
after October 1, 1826. The constitution of no other state con
tained similar provisions on this subject. The constitutions of
Alabama, Kentucky and Louisiana did, however, expressly
provide that the seat of government could be changed by the
legislature. The bitter fight in the Missouri convention over
this question was probably the main reason for these detailed
clauses in the constitution.*"
The great legislative power of proposing and adopting
amendments to the constitution was also expressly delegated
to the general assembly. That body, on a two-thirds vote of
each house, could propose amendments without restriction.
Such proposed amendments were then to be published three
different times in Missouri, at least twelve months before the
next general election. At the first session of the general as
sembly after such general election, that body, on a two-thirds
aye and nay vote of each house, was given power to adopt any
proposed amendments or to reject them. It was provided that
both in proposing and ratifying amendments they should be
read on three several days in each house. Of the twenty-three
state constitutions of that day all except five, New Jersey,
New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia, pro
vided some method of amendment. In fourteen of these the
legislature on its own initiative proposed the question of amend
ment. The vote required differed from a majority of one house,
as in Connecticut, to a two- thirds vote of both houses. No
general rule governed the manner of ratification. Four states,
Delaware, Georgia, Maryland and South Carolina, confided
this power in the legislature alone after an intervening election
had taken place; two, Alabama and Connecticut, in that body
together with a popular vote. The larger number, Illinois
Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Ohio,
and Tennessee, provided for the people voting on a convention,
which body had all powers of amending and revising the con-
" Mo. Const, XL; Shoemaker, pp. 113fl.

Origin and Content of the Constitution. 229
stitution. One state. New Hampshire, provided for a convention
and for ratification by the people; another, Maine, ratification
by a popular vote; and one, Vermont, left ratification to the
legislature whose members were to be instructed. Some states
provided so difficult a process as to render amendment im
probable, and in fact some state constitutions of that time were
never altered but were replaced with new ones. Maryland
alone pro-vided in her constitution an easier amendment clause
than Missouri.*'
The executive power of the general assembly was broad if
interpreted in connection with its legislative powers, and
limited if considered strictly from the specific executive powers
granted. Even from the latter viewpoint, however, these
powers were greater and wider in scope than those retained
today by the legislature. The constitution set forth the general
rules that the appointment of all officers, not otherwise directed
by it, should be made in such manner as might be prescribed
by law.*^ This by implication placed a great general executive
power in the hands of the general assembly and, in a less degree,
the governor, that in many states was expressly given to the
governor alone. This general rule obtained in the constitu
tions of nine states, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Indiana, Mississippi and
Ohio. In the other states either such power of appointment
was given to the governor or no express mention was made
regarding it.*' The constitution, by way of regulation, pro
vided that when any officer should have been appointed by the
joint vote of both houses, or by the separate vote of either house,
the votes should be publicly given viva voce, and entered on the
journals; the whole list of members should be called; and the
names of absentees should be noted and published with the
journal. The constitutions of only three states, Alabama,
Kentucky and Pennsylvania, contained provisions similar to
these.** In the general assembly was vested the power of

" Mo. Const., XIL; Shoemaker, pp. 117f.
" Mo. Consl, III. 32.
" Shoemaker, pp. 54f.
"Mo. Const, III. 22; Shoemaker, p. 22.

230 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
appointing, by a joint vote of both houses, the state treasurer.
This was the general rule in nearly all the states.*' These
executive powers were vested jointly in the senate and the
governor. The appointment of the state auditor, attorney
general, and the secretary of state was placed in the hands of
the governor acting "by and with the advice and consent of
the senate." In the three states that provided for an auditor,
his tenure was under the power of the general assembly ; in those
states that provided for an attorney general, of which Alabama,
Kentucky and Mississippi were the models for Missouri, the
general rule was the appointive tenure; and in the eighteen
states that provided for a secretary of state, seven — Delaware,
Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and
Tennessee — made his tenure appointive by the governor, and
the remaining states made it appointive by the general as
sembly or elective by the people.**
The judicial power of the general assembly extended to
three subjects — impeachments, addresses for the removal of
certain officials, and two classes of contested elections. The
constitution provided that all state officials and judges should
be liable to impeachment for any misdemeanor in office; but
that judgment in such case should not extend farther than
removal from office and disqualification to hold any state office.
The party impeached, whether convicted or acquitted, was
liable to be indicted, tried and punished according to law. The
house of representatives was given the sole power of impeach
ment. All impeachments were to be tried by the senate, and
when sitting for that purpose, the senators were to be on oath to
do justice according to law and evidence. When the governor
was tried, the presiding judge of the supreme court was to pre
side. No person was to be convicted without the concurrence
of two-thirds of all the senators present. The majority of
state constitutions had similar provisions on this subject. The
constitution of the United States or of Connecticut was probably
the pattern followed by Missouri.*' The general assembly was
"Mo. Const, III. 31; Shoemaker, p. 54.
"Mo. Const, IV. 12, 21; V. 18; Shoemaker, pp. 71. 77f. 99.
"Mo, Const, III. 29, 30; Shoemaker, pp. 52f.

Origin and Content of the Constitution, 231
given power to remove supreme and circuit court judges and
the chancellor from office on the address of two-thirds of each
house to the governor for that purpose. Each house was to
state in its journal the cause of the removal and give notice of
same to the accused. The judge or chancellor whose removal
was requested was given the right to be heard in his defense
according to law, but no judicial officer was to be removed in
this manner if he might have been impeached. A majority of
the states provided for removal of judges in this manner. The
constitution of Illinois was the model followed by Missouri.**
Finally the judicial power of the general assembly extended to
deciding, by a joint vote of both houses, contested elections of
governor and lieutenant governor. This principle was followed
by ten states, of which Illinois was the model for Missouri.*"
The general assembly by a joint vote of both houses, was also
given power to decide between those candidates for governor
that had polled the highest votes, who should be governor in case
two or more persons had received an equal number of votes
and a higher number than any other person.""
The limitations placed on the general assembly fall naturally
into two classes — expressed and implied. The latter included
all those grants of power made to the executive or judicial
departments and those powers and regulations that pertained
in a specific or restrictive sense to the legislative department.
Powers granted to the first two departments were by implication
restrictions on the legislature, since by virtue of the state legis
lature's residuary powers such executive or judicial powers
would otherwise have been under the control of the legislature.
Further, those powers of the legislature that were granted in a
specific manner and those regulating provisions governing the
organization and procedure of the legislature, were by implica
tion limitations or prohibitions on that body from exercising
such powers or following such provisions in different manner.
Since all these implied limitations on the general assembly
naturally make their appearance in considering the three de-

" Mo. Const, V. 16; Shoemaker, pp. 97f.
•' Mo. Const, IV. 20; Shoemaker, pp. 76f.
" Mo. Const, IV. 3.

232 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
partments, they need not be enumerated in a separate dis
cussion."' The expressed limitations on the general assembly included
a variety of subjects. Most of these were set forth in a separate
article called "Declaration of Rights," the majority of the
others were placed in the article on the legislative power. The
latter will be considered first.
One of the most important class of limitations on the
general assembly related to slaves. Certain implied, perhaps
expressed limitations were set forth in those slavery provisions
that made it commandatory on the legislature to pass certain
slave laws. Since these have been considered under the legis
lative powers of the general assembly they will not receive
double treatment. Some other slavery limitations were, how
ever, set forth that were without a doubt, expressed ones.
The general assembly was prohibited from passing laws
for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their
•owners, or without paying them, before such emancipation,
a full equivalent for such slaves. It was prohibited from pass-
iing laws to prevent bona fide immigrants to Missouri, or actual
settlers therein, from bringing from any of the states or ter
ritories, such persons as were there deemed slaves, so long as
such persons were regarded slaves in this State. The con
stitutions of Alabama, Kentucky and Mississippi had similar
limitations regarding slavery legislation."^ Other slavery limi
tations that were binding on the legislature and also on the other
two departments of government were these: in criminal prose
cutions, slaves were guaranteed trial by jury; in capital offenses,
a convicted slave was to suffer the same punishment as would
apply to white persons under the same circumstances; counsel
was to be assigned for the defense of slaves in the courts; any
person who should maliciously deprive of life or dismember a
slave, was to suffer such punishment as would be inflicted for a
like offense if committed on a free white person. No other
state constitution went so far in protecting the rights of the

" It was not thought necessary in a work of this character to consider those
implied limitations on the legislature that arise from judicial interpretation.
"Mo. Const, III. 26; Shoemaker, pp. 49f.

Origin and Content of the Constitution. 233
slave as this one. In only three states, Alabama, Kentucky,
and Mississippi, did the constitution expressly give protection
to a slave when prosecuted for crime. These three states and
Georgia also regarded high crimes against slaves in the same
light as though against free whites."'
The general assembly was limited in its power to establish
new counties. No county then established was to be reduced,
by the establishment of new counties, to less than twenty miles
square, nor was any new county to be formed that contained
less than four hundred square miles. The constitution of Ohio
alone contained an identical provision; a similar provision was,
however, included in the constitutions of Alabama, Indiana,
Mississippi and Tennessee."*
A limitation was placed on the general assembly under a
power granted it regarding the revision of the laws. It was
provided that a complete revision of all the laws of the state
was to be made within five years after the adoption of the
constitution and subsequent revisions at the end of every ten
years. The constitution of only one state, Alabama, contained
a similar provision."'
The general assembly was prohibited from interfering with
the primary disposal of United States soil or with any regulation
of Congress for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide
purchasers. It was further prohibited from imposing a tax on
lands the property of the United States or from placing a higher
tax on lands in Missouri owned by non-residents than on lands
owned by residents. And the constitution, accepting and com
plying with the Enabling Act, declared the State had concurrent
jurisdiction on the Mississippi River or any other river as far
as such river or rivers formed part of its boundary and pro
hibited the general assembly from le-vying any tax, duty, impost
or toll, on such streams or on other navigable streams tributary
to the Mississippi River. No state constitution contained
provisions identical with these. The nearest approach was in
the constitution of Tennessee. However, in most of the en-

" Mo. Const, III. 27, 28; Shoemaker, pp. 50f.
"Mo. Const, III. 34; Shoemaker, pp. 56f.
" Mo. Const., III. 35; Shoemaker, pp. 57f.

234 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
abling acts of the western states, similar provisions were set
forth. Their incorporation in these acts probably accounts
for their omission in the state constitutions."*
The limitations on the general assembly that were included
in the "Declaration of Rights" were also limitations or implied
prohibitions on the other two departments. They were, how
ever, of special force with reference to the general assembly
since they dealt largely with subjects that were intended to be
protected from legislative alteration. The "Declaration of
Rights" included those provisions that guarded the rights and
privileges of individuals. It dealt with those fundamental
principles of individual liberty and political rights, many of
which had their inception, or were supposed to have had, in
the Magna Charta. Originally purposed to guard the individual
against executive encroachments, their scope was broadened
to act as a safeguard against all governmental impositions and
especially against legislative action. Having a common origin
in English history and a similar development in American, the
provisions of the various "Bills of Rights," "Declaration of
Rights" and "General Provisions," of the different states,
presented in 1820 and still present today a remarkable uni
formity of purpose and wording. All the states in 1820, except
New Jersey and New York, provided for a bill of rights in their
constitutions. In nine states it was called a "Declaration of
Rights," in two "Bill of Rights," in one "General Provisions,"
and in the others had no name but was placed under a separate
article in the constitution.
The Missouri "Declaration of Rights" consisted of a short
preamble and twenty-two sections. Since these sections were
as concisely and as clearly stated as possible in the constitution,
an exposition of all of them is unnecessary. The general prin
ciples enunciated were these : that all political power was vested
in and derived from the people; that the power of regulating the
government and of altering the constitution belonged to the
people ; that the people had a right to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances; that they also had the
right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of their State ; that

"Mo. Const, X.; Shoemaker, pp. lllf.

Origin and Content of the Constitution. 235
religious equality and freedom of concience were not to be dis
turbed; no religious corporation was to be established; that all
elections were to be free and equal ; that the courts should be open
to all ; that private property ought not to be taken for public use
without just compensation; that the right of trial by jury and
the ordinary process of legal procedure should remain inviolate ;
that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus should not be
suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion ; that excessive
bail should not be required, or excessive fines imposed, or cruel
punishments inflicted; that unreasonable searches and seizures
of person or property were prohibited; that no person could be
attainted of treason or felony by the general assembly; that no
conviction should work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate ;
that the freedom of speech and the press should not be infringed ;
that no ex post facto law should be passed ; that no debtor should
be imprisoned for his debts if he had surrendered his property
according to law; that no priest or preacher should be forced
to bear arms; that all property subject to taxation should be
taxed according to its value ; that no title of nobility should be
granted; that emigration from the State should not be pro
hibited; that the military was subordinate to the civil power;
that no soldier should in times of peace be quartered in any house
without the consent of the owner; and that no appropriation
for the army should be made for a longer period than two years.
The only provision of the foregoing that was not included in
at least half a dozen other state constitutions was the one
relating to taxation. The constitutions of only three other
states, Alabama, Illinois and Maryland, had a similar provision."'
The executive department, provided for in the Missouri
constitution of 1820, was composed of the governor, lieutenant-
governor, adjutant general, auditor, secretary of state, and
treasurer. These officers and all other state officers, both
civil and military, were required, before entering on their
duties, to take an oath to support the State and National con
stitutions and to demean themselves faithfully in office. The
constitutions of Alabama, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Indiana,
Mississippi and Ohio contained similar provisions. All of these

I Mo. Const, XIIL; Shoemaker, pp. 119-132.

236 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
constitutions were of the nineteenth century. No constitution
of the eighteenth century required a state officer to take an
oath to support the United States constitution but practically
all required an oath to support the state constitution. Ohio
was the first state to start this and with the single exception of
Louisiana, it was followed by all the other states that framed
constitutions between 1802 and 1820."*
The supreme executive power was vested in a chief magis
trate styled "The Governor of the state of Missouri." In
providing for a single head form of a chief executive Missouri
followed the general rule that obtained among the states.""
The tenure of the governor was elective by a plurality
vote of the qualified electors. The manner and time of his
election were the same as obtained for representatives. When
two or more persons received an equal number of votes, and a
higher number than any other person, the election was to be
decided between them by a joint vote of both houses of the gen
eral assembly at their next session. Eleven state constitutions
contained similar provisions. Five other states, Maine, Mas
sachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Connecticut, pro
vided for an election by an absolute majority; while six other
states, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, South
Carolina and Virginia, still retained the old method of appoint
ment by the legislature; and one, Louisiana, combined the elec
tion method by the people with appointment by the legislature.'""
The term of the governor was four years and he was in
eligible for the next four years after the end of his term of
service. The first state to provide a similar term was Kentucky,
which was probably influenced by the United States constitu
tion. This was followed by Louisiana, Illinois and Missouri.
Ten states still held to the early rule of a one year term, six to
a two year term, and four to a three year term.'"'
The qualifications of the governor embraced age, citizen
ship, and residence requisites. He was required to be at least

"Mo. Const, III. 32; Shoemaker, pp. 54f.
"Mo. Const., IV. 1; Shoemaker, p. 61.
^" Mo. Const, IV. 3; Shoemaker, pp. 63f.
i" Mo. Const, IV. 3; Shoemaker, pp. 63f.

Origin and Content of the Constitution. 237
thirty-five years of age. This was a high age qualification. At
that time the constitutions of Kentucky, Louisiana and the
United States alone provided for the same. A majority of the
states placed the age minimum at thirty years; two states,
Maryland and Tennessee, at twenty-five years; and six states,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia
and Vermont, had no provision on this point. It was further
required that the governor be a natural born citizen of the
United States, or a citizen at the adoption of the United States
constitution, or "an inhabitant of that part of Louisiana included
in the state of Missouri at the time of the session thereof from
France to the United States." This was also a high qualifi
cation. Besides the United States constitution, from which
this provision was obviously patterned, the constitutions of
Alabama, Illinois and Maine alone made natural or native
citizenship of the United States a necessary requisite. Only
seven other states, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi and Ohio, made any kind of United
States citizenship a requisite. Finally the governor must have
resided in the State for at least four years next before his election.
Eighteen of the states required a state residence qualification,
varying from ten years in South Carolina to two years in Illinois.
Four states, Alabama, Ohio, Tennessee and Vermont, provided
a four year state residence.'"^
The compensation of the governor was under the control
of the general assembly with two restrictions on this control,
the salary of the governor was not to be increased or diminished
during the governor's continuance in office and it was not to
be less than two thousand dollars a year. Eighteen states
made some mention in their constitutions of the compensation
of the governor. In no state constitution, however, was a
minimum amount mentioned. In fact one state, Tennessee,
placed the maximum salary at only seven hundred and fifty
dollars. In no state was there such a liberal provision in the
constitution relating to the salary of the governor.'"'

>"' Mo. Const, IV. 2; Shoemaker, pp. 61fl.
i"Mo. Const, IV. 13; Shoemaker, pp. 71f.

238 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
The succession to the office of governor was set forth in
detail. When the office became vacant by death, resignation,
absence from the State, removal from office, refusal to qualify,
impeachment or otherwise, the lieutenant governor, or, in case
of like disability on his part, the president pro tempore of the
senate, or, if there was no president pro tempore of the senate,
the speaker of the house of representatives, was authorized to
possess all the powers and receive the same compensation as the
governor, until such vacancy was filled by a new or the old
governor. When the office of governor became permanently
vacant, the person temporarily filling that office was commanded
to cause an election to be held to fill such vacancy, giving three
months notice thereof. The person elected was not rendered
ineligible to succeed himself. If, however, the vacancy happened
within eighteen months of the end of the term, no election was
to be held. The succession to the governorship was similarly
provided for in most of the states. But only two states, Alabama
and Illinois, had provisions in their constitutions similar to the
foregoing provision calling for a separate election to fill such
vacancy.'"* The powers and duties of the governor fall naturally into
four classes — executive and civil administrative functions,
military, legislative and judicial. These powers and duties
were specifically set forth and were not, as in some of the cases
of the general assembly, possessed through residuary juris
diction. The executive and civil administrative functions of the
governor were few but important. He was directed to dis
tribute the laws and to see that they were faithfully executed.
He was further empowered to be a conservator of the peace
throughout the State. These general executive powers of the
governor were granted him in a majority of the states.'"' He
was given power to fill by appointment vacancies in offices,
and persons so appointed were to continue in office until a suc
cessor had been duly appointed, or elected, and qualified ac
cording to law. Most of the states had a similar provision in

"'Mo. Consl, IV. 16, 17; Shoemaker, pp. 74f.
"'Mo. Const, IV. 8; Shoemaker, p. 68.

Origin and Content of the Constitution. 239
their constitutions.'"* The governor was commanded to issue
writs of election to fill vacancies in the general assembly. A
number of the states placed this duty on the governor.'"' The
governor was given the power of appointing, by and with the
advice and consent of the senate, the auditor, attorney general,
secretary of state, and all state judges. This was a greater
power than was possessed by the governor in most of the states.'"*
The military powers of the governor made him the com
mander in chief of the militia and na-vy of the state, except
when they were called into the service of the United States.
He was not required to command in person unless advised to
do so by a resolution of the general assembly. He was also
given power to appoint the adjutant general, and all other
militia officers, whose appointments were not otherwise pro
vided for in the constitution. Similar provisions were set
forth in the constitutions of practically all states.'""
The legislative functions of the governor embraced his
veto power on both bills and joint resolutions, his power to
convene the general assembly in special session, and his power
to send messages to that body. Only the last power has not
been considered. The constitution provided that from time
to time the governor should give to the general assembly infor
mation relative to the state of the government and should
recommend to their consideration such measures as he deemed
necessary and expedient. This legislative power was possessed
by the chief executive in fifteen states.""
The expressed judicial functions of the governor were
confined to his power to remit fines and forfeitures, and, except
in cases of impeachment, to grant reprieves and pardons.
These powers were possessed by the governor in nearly all the
states."' The lieutenant governor was elected at the same time, in
the same manner, for the same term, and was required to pos-

"' Mo. Const, IV. 9; Shoemaker, p. 68.
"-'Mo. Const, III. 9; Shoemaker, p. 34.
"'Mo. Const, IV. 12, V. 18, IV. 21, V. 13; Shoemaker, pp. 71, 99, 77f, 95f.
^°> Mo. Const, IV. 5. IX. 3; Shoemaker, pp. 66, 110.
¦'• Mo. Const, IV. 7; Shoemaker, p. 67.
'"Mo. Const, IV. 6; Shoemaker, 66.

240 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
sess the same qualifications as the governor. He was president
of the senate by virtue of his office. In committee of the
whole senate he was privileged to debate on all questions and
on an equal division he was given the casting vote, both in the
senate and in joint votes of both houses. The constitutions
of ten states provided for a lieutenant governor: his duties were
similar in all these. Illinois and Kentucky were probably the
models followed by Missouri in framing these provisions."^
The adjutant general was appointed by the governor.
Neither his term nor his duties were prescribed. In practice
he was the actual head of the militia and his term depended
on the good will and the term of the governor.'"
Thfe a:uditor of public accounts was appointed for four
years by the governor and senate. His duties were to be pre
scribed by law and his office was to be kept at the seat of govern
ment. Only three states provided for an "auditor," and in
each his tenure was appointive by the legislature. The functions
of auditor were, however, exercised by a separate officer in many
of the other states. His term in these states varied from one
to three years."*
The attorney general was appointed for four years by the
governor and senate. His duties were to be prescribed by
law. The constitution patterned this provision after the con
stitutions of Alabama, Kentucky and Mississippi. The ap
pointive tenure was the general rule followed by most of the
states that provided for such an office. His term was three
years in some and during good behavior in others."'
The secretary of state was the most important executive
officer after the governor. He was appointed for four years
by the governor and senate, and it was expressly stated that
he was subject to removal by impeachment processes. His
duties were largely enumerated. He was to keep a register of
all the official acts of the governor and when necessary attest
them; he was commanded to lay same, together with all papers
relative thereto, before either house of the general assembly,
'"Mo. Const, IV. 14, 15; Shoemaker, pp. 72f.
'"Mo. Const, IX. 3; Shoemaker, p. 110.
"'Mo. Const, IV. 12; Shoemaker, pp. 71f.
'"Mo. Const, V. 18; Shoemaker, p. 99.

Origin and Content of the Constitution. 241
whenever requested; and he was to perform such other duties
as might be enjoined on him by law. He was further charged
with procuring a seal of state, with such emblems as should be
directed by law. This seal, called the "Great Seal of the State
of Missouri," was under the custodianship of the secretary of
state. All official acts of the governor, his approbation of the
laws excepted, were to be thereby authenticated. Finally,
the returns of all elections of governor and lieutenant governor
were to be made to the secretary of state. Eighteen states
made provision in their constitutions for a secretary of state.
Three of these, Kentucky, Louisiana and Tennessee, were
identical with the Missouri constitution. Four other states,
Delaware, Illinois, Mississippi and Pennsylvania, made his
tenure appointive by the governor. The remaining states either
made his tenure appointive by the legislature or elective by the
people, which latter obtained in Connecticut and Maine. Be
sides the first three states, only two others made his term four
years, Indiana and South Carolina. With the exception of
Virginia, which made his term during good behavior, the re
maining states were equally divided in providing a term of
one, two, or three years. His duties were similar in most of
the states. All the states made some provision in their con
stitutions for a seal of state. It went by different names. In
the majority of the states the custodian was the governor; in
Georgia and Connecticut it was the secretary of state."*
The state treasurer was appointed biennially by joint vote
of the two houses of the general assembly. His office was at
the seat of government. No money was to be drawn from the
treasury but in consequence of lawful appropriations. He was
required to keep an accurate account of the receipts and ex
penditures of the public money, which account was to be pub
lished annually. The constitutions of only Georgia, Illinois
and Tennessee provided a two year term for the treasurer.
The appointive tenure by the legislature was the general rule
in nearly all the states. The financial duties and regulations
prescribed were also the same in most of the states."'

"'Mo. Const, IV. 19, 21, 22; Shoemaker, pp. 77fl.
"'Mo. Const, III. 31; Shoemaker, pp. 53f.

M S— 16

242 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
The judicial powers were vested in a supreme court, in a
chancellor or a court of chancery, in circuit courts, in such
inferior tribunals as the general assembly might establish, and
in local justices of the peace."* The system of organization
was hierarchical both in form and in character of jurisdiction.
Only the first three bodies, which were essentially state courts,
received any considerable attention in the constitution, the
others, which were local courts, being subject to the control of
the general assembly. Not one, however, was free from a con
siderable degree of control on the part of the legislature. The
only constitutional provisions that seemingly applied to all
five courts related to clerks and writs. The courts were em
powered to appoint their clerks, who were to hold office during
good behavior. For any misdemeanor in office they were liable
to be tried and removed by the supreme court as should be
directed by law. Nearly half of the state constitutions had
similar provisions."" The Missouri constitution provided that
all writs and processes should run, and all prosecutions should
be conducted, in the name of the "State of Missouri;" and that
all writs should be tested by the clerk of the court from which
they should issue, and all indictments should conclude, "against
the peace and dignity of the state." A majority of the state
constitutions set forth similar rules. Some used the word,
"People," some "Commonwealth," but most used "State." '^"
The judges of the supreme court and the circuit courts,
and the chancellor, were all subject to the same constitutional
provisions regarding their tenure, term, compensation, qualifi
cation and removal. Their tenure was appointive by the
governor and the senate. All the states except Georgia, and
in part Indiana, provided for an appointive tenure for the
judges: about half confided this power in the legislature and
half in the governor and senate or council.'^' The tenure was
during good behavior. All of the states except Georgia, In
diana, Ohio and Connecticut, made the same provision.'^^ The

"'Mo. Const, V. 1, 12, 17.
"'Mo. Const, V. 15; Shoemaker, p. 97.
'"Mo. Const, V. 19; Shoemaker, pp. 99f.
'"Mo. Const, V. 13; Shoemaker, pp. 94f.
"' Ibid.

Origin and Content of the Constitution. 243
salary was not to be lower than two thousand dollars a year
and was not to be diminished during the holding of office.
Practically all the states provided that either the salary was
to be adequate or was not to be diminished during office. Mis
souri followed the general rule that obtained in all of these
cases except that she stated definitely what the minimum salary
was. Illinois was the only other state that did this, and Louis
iana was the only state that placed the salary at a definite
figure.'^' The only qualification that applied to these judges
related to age. The minimum age qualification was thirty
years; the maximum was sixty -five years, over which no judge
was to exercise the duties of his office. No other state consti
tution contained a minimum age qualification for judges and
only five, Alabama, Connecticut, Maine, Mississippi and New
Hampshire, provided for a maximum one. The actual qualifi
cations of the judges during the early state period were uniformly
high but this was due either to statutory provisions or to cus
tom.'^* The removal of the judges was provided for either by
impeachment proceedings by the house of representatives and
by the senate, or by address of the general assembly to the
governor. Both of these functions have been considered under
the judicial powers of the legislature.'^'
Besides these general rules applying to the organization
of the three higher courts, the constitution also set forth specific
provisions regarding both the organization and the jurisdiction
of each court.
The supreme court was composed of three judges, any two
of whom constituted a quorum. These judges were to be con
servators of the peace throughout the State. A majority of
the states provided for a supreme court of some kind although
under various names. No rules obtained in the states regarding
the composition of this court. The number of judges varied
from three to eight. In all cases either two or a majority of
the judges constituted a quorum, and in many states they were

'" IMd.
'"Mo. Const, V. 14; Shoemaker, p. 96.
"' See supra.

244 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
expressly made conservators of the peace. The constitution
of Indiana was probably the model followed by Missouri.'^*
The general jurisdiction of the supreme court, except in cases
otherwise directed by the constitution, was appellate and was
co-extensive with the State. The constitution gave the court
general superintending control over all inferior courts. It
was also given the power to issue writs of habeas corpus, man
damus, quo warranto, certiorari and other remedial writs, and
to hear and determine the same. The constitutions of Alabama,
Georgia and Tennessee gave the same jurisdiction to their
supreme courts. The Indiana constitution contained a similar
provision but did not expressly give the supreme court power
to issue remedial writs. '^' The place and time of sessions were
largely under the control of the general assembly. It was
provided that the state should be divided into convenient
districts, not to exceed four, in each of which the supreme court
was to hold two sessions annually, at such place as the general
assembly should appoint; and when sitting in either district,
that court should exercise jurisdiction over causes originating
in that district only. It was further provided, however, that
the general assembly might, at any time, direct by law that
the supreme court hold its sessions at one place only. Few
state constitutions made mention of these subjects. The
constitution of Louisiana bore the nearest resemblance to Mis
souri's in this respect.'^*
The composition of the court of chancery was a chancellor.
The jurisdiction of this court was co-extensive with the State.
The times and places of holding its sessions were to be regulated
in the same manner as those of the supreme court. It was to
have possessed original and appellate jurisdiction in all matters
of equity, and a general control over executors, administrators,
guardians and minors, subject to appeal, in all cases, to the
supreme court, as should be pro-vided by law. Only seven
states, Alabama, Delaware, New Jersey, Vermont, Maryland,
Pennsylvania and Mississippi, made any express provision in
"'Mo. Const, V. 4; Shoemaker, p. 88.
'"Mo. Const, V. 3; Shoemaker, p. 87.
"'Mo. Const, V. 5; Shoemaker, pp. 88f.

Origin and Content of the Constitution. 245
their constitutions for a chancellor or a court of chancery.
Regarding both the extent and kind of jurisdiction of this court,
Missouri followed the Delaware constitution.'^"
The circuit courts were modeled on those of the territorial
period. Each was composed of one circuit judge. The State
was to be divided into convenient circuits, for each of which a
judge was to be appointed. Each circuit judge was required
to reside in his circuit and was to be a conservator of the peace
in that circuit. The name "circuit court" appeared only in the
constitutions of Illinois, Indiana and Alabama. The functions
of this court were, however, exercised in other states by like
courts that differed in name only."" The reason the number
of circuits were not fixed in the constitution was probably due
to the obvious necessity that would arise of making changes.
The jurisdiction of this court extended to both criminal and
civil cases. It was given jurisdiction over all criminal cases
that should not be otherwise provided for by law, and exclusive
original jurisdiction in all civil cases not cognizable before
justices of the peace, until otherwise directed by the general
assembly. The circuit court was further authorized to exercise
a superintending control over all inferior tribunals that might
be established and over justice of the peace in each county in
its respective circuit. The time of sessions was impliedly left
to the regulation of the general assembly. The place of session
was expressly under the selection of that body with the limitation
that one place was to be selected in each county. The pro
visions regarding the jurisdiction of the circuit court were prob
ably copied from the constitution of Alabama; those regarding
the control of this court over inferior tribunals were patterned
after the Ohio and Pennsylvania courts."' The circuit court
was also given jurisdiction in matters of equity. Its decision
in such matters was not final, being subject to appeal to the
court of chancery. This equity jurisdiction was, further, not
vested permanently in the circuit court, but only until the
general assembly should establish inferior courts of chancery.

'"Mo. Const, V. 9, 10; Shoemaker, pp. 86, 90f.
'"Mo. Const., V. 7; Shoemaker, pp. 86, 90.
"'Mo. Const, V. 6, 8; Shoemaker, pp. 89f., 90f.

246 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
In giving the circuit court this kind of jurisdiction the Missouri
constitution followed the constitutions of Alabama and Dela
ware."^ The local courts embraced "inferior tribunals" and courts
of justices of the peace. These two courts were subject in every
express way to the control of the legislature. The constitution
provided that inferior tribunals should be established in each
county. These courts combined the powers of county courts
and probate courts. They were to transact all county business,
appoint guardians, grant letters testamentary and of adminis
tration, and settle the accounts of executors, administrators
and guardians. The constitution further provided that in
each county there were to be appointed as many justices of
the peace as the public good required. Their power and duties,
and term were to be regulated by law. A number of state
constitutions provided for the establishing of inferior tribunals.
Of these, the constitutions of Kentucky and Mississippi were
the models for Missouri.'" A majority of the states that
provided in their constitution for justices of the peace, made
the tenure appointive and the term from three to nine years.
Their number and duties were open to statutory regulation.
The constitutions of Illinois and Kentucky were the models
for Missouri on this subject."*
The constitution while enlarging on the frame of state
government, its organization, powers, duties and limitations,
paid little attention to the frame of local government. The
form and character of the latter was in general to be determined
by the general assembly. There were, however, four limitations
on this power, the first three of which have been considered.
Inferior tribunals were to be established in each county for
transacting county business, justices of the peace were to be
appointed in each county, no county was to be established
with less than four hundred square miles area and no county
reduced to less than that size, and a sheriff and a coroner were
to be provided for in each county.

"'Mo. Const, V. 11; Shoemaker, p. 92.
'"Mo. Const, V. 12; Shoemaker, p. 93.
'" Mo. Const, V. 17; Shoemaker, pp. 98f.

Origin and Content of the Constitution. 247
There were to be appointed in each county a sheriff and
a coroner, who, until the general assembly should otherwise
provide, should be elected by the qualified voters at the time
and place of electing representatives. Their term was two
years, and they were to hold office until a successor had been
duly appointed and qualified. They were subject to removal
for misdemeanor in ofifice and were ineligible four years in any
period of eight years. They were required to give security for
the faithful discharge of the duties of their office, as prescribed
by law. Whenever a new county was established, the governor
was to appoint for it a sheriff and a coroner, who were to con
tinue in office until the next election and a successor had been
duly qualified. When vacancies happened in the office of either,
they were to be filled by appointment of the governor and those
so appointed were to hold office until successors had been duly
qualified. Such appointees were not, however, rendered in
eligible for the next succeeding term. In tie and contested
elections of either office the circuit court was given the power
of deciding who should hold the office."'
All the states made some provision for a sheriff in their con
stitutions and a number for a coroner. Thirteen states pro
vided for both officers in each county; the remaining states
either provided for a sheriff or sheriffs alone, or for two sheriffs
and two coroners. About half the states had the elective
tenure as applied here and the remainder the appointive. Seven
states allowed a two year term; six, a one year term; five, a three
year term; one, a four year term; and the remainder left this
point open. A number of constitutions made these officers
ineligible for certain lengths of time. Only two state con
stitutions, Connecticut and Vermont, required these offices to
give security, however in Maryland the qualifications for sheriff
were high. The governor's power of appointment in certain
contingencies was one exercised in actual practice in a number
of states although not provided for by constitutional provisions.
In the case of tie and contested elections the local courts were
not given powers of decision in any other state constitution-
However, in Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia, these courts

'"Mo. Const, IV. 23, 24, 25.

248 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
were the determining factors in the appointment of the sheriff
and coroner, and in Tennessee they were the sole appointers.
It was natural that when Missouri adopted the elective tenure
for these offices, contested elections and ties were left to be de
termined by the old judicial bodies having such full power in
these three kindred states. The local government provisions
in the Missouri constitution seem to have been influenced by
the constitutions of Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia,
Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia.
This concludes the study of the origin and the analysis of
the content of the Missouri constitution. A "Schedule" ap
pended to that document contained provisions and arrange
ments for the transition from the territorial government to a
state regime. Being of a temporary nature, this schedule is
not strictly a part of the constitution. In general this schedule
did not differ from those in other state instruments. It treated
of five main subjects: the territorial governmental processes
and officers that were to hold over up to or after the inauguration
of the state government; the temporary seat of government of
the State; the apportionment of members for the first state
general assembly; the first state election; and the governor's
seal. It provided that legal instruments and actions at law
then in force were to continue effective; that all territorial laws
not repugnant to the constitution were to operate until they
expired by their own limitations, or were altered or repealed
by the general assembly; and that all territorial officers were
to hold office and receive compensation until superseded by
state officials.
It provided that the first meeting of the general assembly
was to be at St. Louis, with power to adjourn to any other
place ; that that body at its first session was to fiix the temporary
seat of government until October 1, 1826; and that it had power
to fix the compensation of its members.
The following apportionment was made for the forty-three
representatives to the first general assembly: Howard, eight;
Cooper, four; Montgomery, two; Lincoln, one; Pike, two; St.
Charles, three; St. Louis, six; Franklin, two; Jefferson, one;
Washington, two; Ste. Genevieve, four; Cape Girardeau, four;

Origin and Content of the Constitution. 249
New Madrid, two; Madison, one; and Wayne, one. Persons
who had resided in the state five months previous to the adop
tion of the constitution and who were otherwise qualified ac
cording to the provisions of the constitution were eligible to
the house of representatives and to the senate. For the first
election of senators, the State was divided into nine districts
and the fourteen senators were apportioned as follows : Howard
and Cooper, four senators; Montgomery and Franklin, one;
St. Charles, one; Lincoln and Pike, one; St. Louis, two; Wash
ington and Jefferson, one; Ste. Genevieve, one; Madison and
Wayne, one; Cape Girardeau and New Madrid, two.
David Barton, president of the convention, was directed
to issue writs of election to the sheriffs of the several counties,
requiring them to cause an election to be held on the fourth
Monday in August, 1820, for a governor, a lieutenant governor,
a representative in Congress, for the residue of the Sixteenth
Congress, a representative for the Seventeenth Congress,
senators and representatives for the general assembly, sheriffs
and coroners. Any person who had resided in the State at the
adoption of the constitution and who was otherwise qualified,
was deemed a qualified elector. The elections were to be con
ducted according to the existing laws of the Territory.
Finally, the schedule provided that the governor might
use his private seal until a State seal was pro-vided.
In a study of the origin and in an analysis of the content
of the Missouri constitution of 1820 two points stand out
clearly: first, this constitution was fundamental as compared
with the majority of later state instruments in setting forth
in brief terms the organization and functions of the State
government; second, its general provisions differed in relatively
few respects from those to be found in some of the then existing
state constitutions.
In the framing of some parts it is apparent that one or
two state constitutions were largely the patterns followed; as
regards other parts it appears that they were selected from first
one and then another state's organic law. Naturally the very
character of the inhabitants of Missouri predisposed them to
follow the southern type of constitutions, especially those of

250 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Kentucky and Alabama in preference to those of the north,
but this did not seemingly in the least hinder the convention
from favoring and choosing a section from the constitutions of
Maine, Delaware, Connecticut or Pennsylvania, or from Ohio
and Indiana, and throughout the entire document is seen the
great influence exerted by the constitution of Illinois. In fact
it appears that with the exception of Kentucky, the latest
framed state constitutions, e. g., Alabama, Illinois, Maine, etc.,
were more influential than the others. Further it appears that
the framers of this constitution strove conscientiously to adopt
those provisions, from whatever source they came, that in their
view were the best fitted for guiding Missouri in her future
development. Two compromises on important subjects were
included in this document and each was made in a similar
manner. The selection of a permanent seat of government was
shifted to the general assembly and the choosing of either the
viva voce or the ballot system of voting was also shifted to the
shoulders of that body. On the whole, it speaks well for the
convention that its work stood the test of nearly half a century
and then was displaced by an instrument whose adoption was
based on reasons other than merit, however great the latter
was in itself.
The specific provisions of the Missouri constitution of 1820
differed in some respects from those in other constitutions.
These differences, or departures from established rules, were
on the whole distinct advances. Some were merely novelties,
but most were important and in practice worked well. The
latter is proved by the incorporation of a majority of these
specific provisions in the present constitution of Missouri.
The preamble of the 1820 constitution contained a phrase
that appeared in no other state constitution of that day. This
phrase was that the people of Missouri did mutually agree to
form and establish "a free and independent republic." There
is, however, no reason to attach special significance to the
word republic. It was merely a novelty that carried no import
except to the Fourth of July orator seeking political favors.
A number of provisions, applying to the legislature, was
inserted that were followed by few of the twenty-three states.

Origin and Content of the Constitution. 251
A two year term for state representatives obtained in only four
states. An age qualification of twenty-four years for repre
sentatives was present in only two states. In only two states
was an age qualification of thirty years provided for state
senators. Biennial state elections were provided for in only
four states. A corrupt practices act of equal worth obtained
in only two states. A provision empowering the general as
sembly to punish by "fine or imprisonment" those, not members,
for contempt of authority of the legislature, obtained in no
other state constitution. No other state constitution gave so
much protection to the rights of the slave as did this one,
although no other state made it mandatory on the legislature
to prohibit free negroes from coming into the state. Only
five other state constitutions directed the legislature to make
laws regulating the manner whereby suits might be brought
against the state. In only two other state constitutions were
biennial sessions of the legislature provided for, the others
having annual sessions. Finally, only one other state con
stitution provided for a revision of the state's laws at regular
intervals of time.
The noteworthy provisions apply to the executive depart
ment were, with one or two exceptions, distinct inprovements
over the other state constitutions of that day. Only two states
required the governor to be at least thirty-five years old and
only three states made his citizenship qualification so high. In
only three states was the term of the governor as long as in
Missouri, i. e., four years. With the single exception of Ken
tucky, Missouri was alone at this time in allowing the governor
by constitutional provision ten days in which to pass on bills,
the other states either placed a shorter time limit or made no
mention of this. An officer called the "Auditor" was provided
for in only three constitutions and in no state was his term four
years or his tenure appointive by the governor and senate —
being usually left to the legislature. In no state constitution
was there so liberal a provision for the salary of the governor,
no state set forth the minimum amount he should receive and
one state had a maximum amount that was less than two-fifths
of Missouri's minimum. Only two states provided for a four

252 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
year term for the lieutenant governor and only one of these
required him to be at least thirty-five years old. No other
state constitution went as far as Missouri's in providing for the
succession in case of temporary vacancy in the office of governor
and only two states had such a detailed provision on the election
of a governor to fill the vacancy occurring during the unexpired
term of the regular incumbent.
In the framing of the provisions on the judiciary, the
constitution followed more closely the provisions in other
constitutions than was the case in either the legislative or
executive departments. This was natural. Of the three de
partments of government, the judiciary of the states was the
last to succumb to the leveling spirit of democracy. The
peculiar conservatism that has for centuries attached itself in
English speaking countries to the law interpreting department
of the State, the general high regard in which it has been held,
and the sanctity of stability which has surrounded both bench
and bar and which has enabled them to follow precedent and
custom instead of being subject to changes, are all easily per
ceived by any one who has traced in even an elementary manner
the institutional growth of English and American history. The
Missouri constitution of 1820 was no exception to the spirit of
the times in this respect.
Several departures were, however, made in the Missouri
judiciary department. Only one other state constitution pro
vided for a minimum salary for the judges of the higher courts.
One state constitution did, however, mention what the salary
should be. No other state constitution provided for a minimum
age qualification for the judge and only five states had a maximum
age qualification. The provisions in the Missouri constitution relating to a
state bank were exceptionally conservative.
It is also worthy of mention that only one state constitu
tion at that time provided an easier method of amendment,
i. e., where an amending clause could be found.
The last article in the Missouri constitution of 1820,
article XIII on the "Declaration of Rights," was so uniformly
similar to corresponding articles in many other state consti-

Origin and Content of the Constitution. 253
tutions that it presents no special points of variation of either
novelty or importance. The same general spirit permeated
the bills of rights of the various constitutions and the Missouri
constitution was no exception.

CHAPTER IX.
A DE FACTO STATE.
Missouri became a state on Wednesday, July 19, 1820.
On that day was adopted the first state constitution of Missouri.'
This constitution immediately superseded in sovereign au
thority the former organic laws of Missouri, i. e., the acts of
Congress. Although provisions were made for the territorial
laws and officers remaining in force and in office until the former
were abrogated, amended or superseded by later state laws,
and until the latter were displaced with state officers, such
territorial laws and officers derived their legal power from the
express sanction of the constitution and not from the territorial
forms of government of 1812 and 1816.^ Even on the day the
constitution was adopted, the president of the convention,
acting under the authority vested in him by the constitution,
exercised a power of the highest character, that by the territorial
laws was expressly vested in the governor. This power was
the issuing of writs of election to the sheriffs of the various
counties to hold a special election.' Not only were the writs
of the first state election issued by David Barton on July 19,
1820, but they were issued under the authority of "the State
of Missouri." The following is a copy of one of these writs
taken from the Jackson (Mo.) Herald of July 22, 1820:

' This constitution was never submitted to a popular vote. The Missouri
Enabling Act was silent on the point and the Missouri convention of 1820 made
no provision for having the constitution submitted to the people. The preamble
of the constitution stated that on Monday, June 12, 1820, the delegates in the
convention did "mutually agree to form and estabUsh a free and independent
repubUc, by the name of 'THE STATE OF MISSOURI,' " and for the govern
ment thereof they did "ordain and estabUsh this constitution." That the con
vention had authority to form a constitution and state governmeut is obvious
from section four of the EnabUng Act.
= Missouri Constitution, Schedule, sec. 1-5.
' Mo. Ter. Laws, sec. 15, 20, 22, of act of Jan. 4, 1814, (pp. 299fl). Cf., also
sec. 7 of Act of Cong. June 4, 1812. (U. S. Stat, at Large, II. 745fl.) Mo. Const.
Schedule, Sec. 9.

(254)

A De Facto State. 255
The Stale of Missouri
To the Sherifl of the County of Cape Girardeau or in case of vacancy, to the
Coroner of said Coimty, Greeting:
You are hereby required, that you cause an Election to be held, in the manner
prescribed by law, at the several places of holding Elections within your county,
on the fourth Monday of August next, for one Governor, one Lieutenant-Governor
of this state ; a Representative in the Congress of the United States for the residue
of the sixteenth Congress, a Representative for the seventeenth Congress; two
Senators for the district composed of your said county and the county of New
Madrid, and four Representatives from said county to the General Assembly ; one
Sherifl and one Coroner for your county — Herein fail not.
WITNESS. David Barton, President of the Convention at St. Louis, the
19th day of July, 1820, and of American Independence the 45th. DAVID BARTON.
The regular territorial election of 1820 should have taken
place on the first Monday in August: this election was never
held because the territorial laws had been abrogated by the
Missouri constitution on this point. Several other examples
might be cited to show that beginning July 19, 1820, Missouri
was a de facto state but it does not seem necessary here.*
At least a month before Missouri had adopted a constitu
tion and become a state, and more than two months before the
first state election, the "wire-pulling" of candidates for both
elective and appointive officers had begun. The convention
had barely settled down to the work of framing an organic law
for Missouri when it was more or less torn by the political
aspirations of those in and out of that body. It is impossible
to say how much this struggle for office holding affected the fram
ing of the constitution; it is not improbable, however, that its
influence was great. Some sections of that document, e. g.,
the high salary clauses, were probably the result of the work
of those who expected to benefit by those sections. The op
portunities for "logrolling" were too many not to have been
taken advantage of by the leaders. The "caucus" was as
prominent as in the hey-day of later years and as fully com
mented on by the opposition. The secrecy that veiled the
work of the convention, the almost criminally unsatisfactory
character of the Journal on debates and votes, and the tardiness

< Cf. Mo. Ter. Laws, sec. 1, 11, of Jan. 4, 1814 (pp. 297f), regarding time of
election, officers to be elected, and quaUfications of electors. Also act of Congress
of June 4, 1812, sec. 6. (U. S. Stat at Large, II. 745.) A proclamation of Fred
erick Bates, as acting governor of Missouri Territory, dated July 20, 1820, does
not disprove the position taken here. The proclamation referred to offered
reward for the arrest of a certain criminaL (St Charles Mo., Aug. 12. 1820.)

256 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
in the distribution of that document, were all calculated to and
partially succeeded in keeping the people uninformed on what
some of their representatives had done. This much is certain
that the plans and counter-plans in the convention that stretched
from the future occupants of the Bench of Missouri and of the
State Executive Department to the Halls of Congress, were as
vigorously fought for as were those schemes over the location
of the temporary and permanent seats of government of the
new State. This political campaigning was confined in the
convention to a minority of the delegates but this minority
included the leaders of that body. It is not improbable that
these leaders were forced to compromise on issues in order to
forward their ambitions and although the constitution suffered
in some of these compromises it may also have gained in others.
The early campaigning, which was in full sway by June
and which probably had its inception in May, was over the
state offices of governor, supreme court judges, and the two
United States senators to be chosen from Missouri. Although
only one of these, the governor, was elective by popular vote,
the tenure of the other five rested on the will of the governor
and the members of the general assembly. The importance
of the governor was further increased by his power of appoint
ment of the chancellor and of all the members of the executive
department except the treasurer, which, like United States
senators, was exclusively under the control of the legislature.
The office of representative in Congress was not subject to dis
pute as it was the desire of a majority of the inhabitants to
see John Scott, the last territorial delegate from Missouri,
returned to Washington. No one openly opposed his re-election
and no other name was on the ballot for this office. The office
of lieutenant-governor was not sought after in the early part of
the campaign. Towards the close, however, several candidates
appeared. The ability and public record of William Clark, the ter
ritorial governor of Missouri, and the many friends attached
to him, furnished a strong recommendation for his candidacy
for the office of chief executive of the new State. The lingering
illness of his wife, however, who at that time was in Virginia,

A De Facto State. 251
acted as a check on whatever political ambitions were enter
tained by Clark.' He refused at first to have his name con
sidered and his secretary, Frederick Bates, was urged for the
place. It is not clear who first brought Bates out but it is not
improbable that one of his endorsers was Charless, editor of
the Missouri Gazette.^ Bates had enjoyed public office in
Missouri Territory and in the Territory of Louisiana for over
a decade. His appointment to the secretaryship of these two
territories and the satisfactory manner in which he had dis
charged the duties of his office, frequently being also the acting
territorial governor, made him well qualified to hold the office
of governor of Missouri. Bates was probably induced to become a
candidate both by some of the supporters and by some of the
enemies of Clark as well as by his own personal friends. Up
to this time political conditions were unsettled. The informal
announcement of Bates and his endorsement by Charless gave
impulse to the wire-pulling of the politicians.
Alexander McNair was brought forward as a candidate for
governor. McNair probably announced his own candidacy.
He was at once taken up and endorsed by those members of
the St. Louis caucus who looked upon him as being less dis
tasteful than Bates. These politicians probably regarded
McNair as being simply the lesser of two evils. They also
thought he could be worked to do their bidding and they began
sending out letters endorsing his candidacy. On finding McNair
independent of their wishes and requests, they at once switched
their support to Clark and countermanded their McNair let
ters.' The public and military record of McNair in Missouri
Territory, combined with his model and hospitable private life,
made him good, political timber. He had many friends and
few personal enemies. Besides possessing a popular record in
his administration of the United States Land Office at St.
Louis, McNair was a "mixer." He was more popular than

• Mrs. Julia Clark, wife of Gov. Clark, died at Fotheringay, Va., on June
27, (Mo. Intell, Sept. 2, 1820.)
• See article by "Fair Play" in Mo. Gaz., Aug. 23, 1820.
I Article by "Fair Play" in Mo. Gaz., Aug. 23. 1820.
M S— 17

258 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Clark and his campaign in July and August showed his ability
to discern and to present those political issues that advanced
his cause. The announcement of McNair as a candidate was followed
closely by that of Clark. It appears that the personal per
suasion of friends and of the St. Louis politicians induced Clark
to give his consent to run. Bates, whose candidacy had been
more rumored than settled, withdrew from the race. The final
entrance of Clark and McNair as rival candidates for the
governorship gave a definite tone to the campaign that changed
little up to the day of the election.* The support of Charless
and of the Gazette followers swung to McNair; the machine
politicians supported Clark.
Clark was the choice of the leaders of the convention.
The prominent politicians and la-wyers of St. Louis were for
him. These combined with his political friends throughout
the Territory made his position a strong one. The well known
St. Louis lawyer junto of the spring of 1820 became the caucus
of the summer of that year. Joseph Charless, editor of the
Missouri Gazette, waged war against the latter, especially against
his rival, Benton — editor of the St. Louis Enquirer — , with his
characteristic, fiery articles. Benton played safe in combating
Charless and in pulling the wires for his own advancement.
During June the caucus met several times. A slate was finally
made with Clark at its head; Benton and Jones were put down
for United States senators; Barton — probably David — , Harper
and Cook — probably John D. — , for Supreme Court judges.
A majority of the members of the convention had nothing to
do with these plans but all were aware of what was being done.
Finally even in the debates of the convention, principles and
issues on the constitution were dropped, "in order to indulge
in invidious reflections on motives, such as personal views,
intrigue, office hunting, carving and dividing the loaves and fishes,
etc., together with exculpatory answers of antagonists." '

¦ Letter of L. Jno. O'FaUon, St. Louis, June 24, 1820, to Gen. T. A. Smith.
{Smith Mss.)
' Mo. Gazette, editorial, June 28, July 12, 1820.

A De Facto State. 259
Although the slate of the caucus did not go through as
originally planned, it speaks well for the political ability of that
body that every candidate on it except Clark was elected or
appointed to an important state office. Benton and Barton
reached the United States Senate; Harper was appointed State
Chancellor; and Jones and Cook were appointed two of the
first three Supreme Court Judges of Missouri. It appears that
the first slate was later changed and some of the names dropped.
Clark and Benton were, however, the conspicuous names that
remained before the public and, although the Gazette was
friendly towards several of the candidates selected by the caucus,
Charless never ceased to oppose the candidacy of Clark and
Benton.'" Charless was also opposed to the methods as well as to the
lawyer-composition of the caucus. He wrote in part as follows:
"It was a junto or caucus we alluded to who availed themselves
of the opportunity which the meeting of the Convention af
forded to effect their selfish designs. We appeal to almost
every member of the Convention whether he was not personally
tried to be prevailed to pledge himself to the support of at least
two of the candidates named, viz. : Governor Clark and Colonel
Benton . . . Governor Clark and Colonel Benton were
two candidates fixed and determined upon. If the story
enrages the noble minded Missourian, against some of the men
named, it will effect a desirable object . . . But every
friend of the state will oppose the men who arranged and plotted
the scheme, and the public well know who are the authors of
it ... . [Dare they deny] that a certain set of men met several
times in St. Louis, during the meeting of the Convention,
whose whole object was the determination how to dispose of
the loaves and fishes in the future state of Missouri. Dare
they deny that some of the friends of Governor Clark wrote in
favor of Colonel McNair, at a time when it was understood
that Governor Clark would not run. Dare they deny, that
these letters were afterwards countermanded. And dare they
deny that all this was done by direction of the caucus or junto,

"Mo. Gaz., Aug. 9, 1820, editorial

260 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
or whatever else the quibbling editor [Benton] may please to
call the meeting." "
Of all the leaders of the caucus and of all the candidates
favored by it, none was so bitterly attacked as Benton. In
an editorial which appeared in the Gazette on July 12, 1820,
the future statesman of Missouri was thus described:
"A man crimsoned with the blood of one of our most promising young citi
zens, under circumstances of cold and deUberate calculation, whose only fault
was to be in the way of his ambitious designs — whose character and reputation
was spotless, and operated as a reproach to that of his ferocious enemy. We
say that such a blood-thirsty man is much worse than 'a Panther.' " "
The St. Louis Enquirer was kept busy trying to explain
and side-step the charges of the Gazette. It seems to have
failed in defending its cause and in order to divert public opinion
made the contemptible charge that the slavery-restrictionists
were being headed by McNair. Early in the campaign the
Enquirer, in answer to an article that had appeared in the Ga
zette, tried to connect the restrictionists and the McNair sup
porters — especially Charless. The falseness of this statement
is shown by the fact that of the nineteen candidates for election
to the General Assembly in St. Louis county, only two were
in favor of restriction and one of these was a Clark man. The
single restrictionist candidate in St. Charles county was a Clark
man. No restrictionist candidates were up at all in Jefferson
and Washington Counties."
The Gazette-Enquirer controversies revealed the machine
methods of the campaign: the public campaign waged by the
candidates and their friends was described principally in private
letters, public letters, and newspaper articles that appeared
over anonymous names. While the machine campaign held the
attention of St. Louis and the vicinity, the public campaign
was given greater prominence in the county press. The echoes
of the bitter Charless-Benton struggle waged in St. Louis hardly
reached the ears of the voters in the Boone's Lick county; the
latter were interested in the public campaign conducted by

" Ibid.
" Charless here referred to the Benton-Lucas duel, in which Benton murdered
the son of the eminent jurist. Judge John B. C. Lucas.
"Mo. Gaz., Aug. 23, 1820, article by "Fair Play;" cf., iMd., July 12, 1820;
Enquirer, Aug. 12, 1820.

A De Facto State. 261
the friends and opponents of Clark and McNair and in the
personal electioneering of McNair.
The absence of Clark from Missouri during the campaign
may have hurt his cause but it is equally probable that it gave
him many votes through the sympathy of those who knew of
the severe illness of Mrs. Clark. Further, Clark's candidacy
was ably conducted by his friends and especially by the St.
Louis lawyers and by other aspirants for political honors
scattered over the State.
Following closely on giving his consent to run, Clark
wrote a public letter "To the People of Missouri." " This
letter was modest in tone and reserved in language. It con
tained no mention of his opponent and merely set forth in
concise language Clark's biography. In it Clark stated that his
early life had been spent in Kentucky; that he had come to
Louisiana in the fall of 1803; had lived in Missouri seventeen
years; and had been its governor seven years. He added with
pride that he had received commissions from four Presidents —
Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. After stating
that he would be away from Missouri till after the election,
Clark concluded: "I cannot flatter myself that I am worthy to
occupy the first office among you; but if called to it by your
voice, I shall bring with me a fervent wish to contribute to your
prosperity, and to maintain the honor of a State whose name
must forever be dear to me."
The friends of Clark urged his case before the people in
newspaper articles. The military and civil record of Clark,
his negotiations with the Indians, and his joint-leadership of
the even then famous Lewis and Clark Expedition, were his
strongest assets in public esteem.'* His part in extinguishing
Indian titles in Missouri was also strongly emphasized and struck
a responsive chord in the hearts of the frontiersmen." Clark's
gentlemanly qualities and his knowledge of government were
also urged and one writer with modern political astuteness
called him the "poor man's friend." '*

¦1 This letter was dated St. Louis, July 2, 1820. (Mo. Intell Aug. 26, 1820.)
" Mo. Intell Aug. 12, 1820, article by "An Observer."
I' Mo. Intell. Aug. 26, 1820, article- copies from the Enquirer.
" IMd., article by "G."

262 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
The opposition to Clark made few charges against him.
Clark's private life was exemplary. His present troubles
secured for him the sympathy of even his enemies. His public
record had been a long and honorable one. The only criticism
urged against it by his enemies was Clark's laxness in protecting
the frontier against the Indians.'" The most damaging argu
ment against Clark was his affiliation with the lawyer caucus
at St. Louis. It was sarcastically said by one that the delegates
from the convention had returned home friends of Clark and had
since always spoken of him as a "great, good and wise man." 2"
Since at this time many of the delegates had fallen into public
disfavor on account of the high salary clauses in the constitution,
their advocacy of Clark only served to fasten suspicion on both
them and their candidate. In short in Clark's strength lay his
weakness. His supporters and especially his campaign man
agers had displeased all by their caucus methods. It seemed to
the voters that a ring had determined to dictate to the people,
and the people in turn resolved to rebel against such plans.
They turned to McNair, who was opposed by the caucus and
who had voted against high salaries.
McNair began his campaign early. It is probable that
his obvious inactivity in the convention and the inconspicuous
part he played in the framing of the constitution were due to
.his political ambitions for the governorship. McNair waged
a personal campaign from the beginning. He not only appealed
to individuals but he made a popular appeal to the people.
His methods were democratic, savoring a little of the demagogue,
but did not degenerate to personal abuse of his antagonist. He
"stumped" the state and outside of St. Louis did or said nothing
to incur either bitter hostility or contempt. The first recorded
public utterance of McNair was made in June. He is reported
to have said that he calculated on a majority of five hundred in
St. Louis county, which would consist of "the honest farmers"
who were able to appreciate his merits.^' This well planned

" Mo. InteU. Aug. 5, 26, 1820, an article by "A Citizen."
>» Ibid., Aug. 19, 1820, an article by "Shelby."
" Letter of L. Jno. O'FaUon, dated St. Louis, July 24, 1820, to Gen. T. A.
Smith. (Smith Mss.) O'FaUon favored Clark.

A De Facto State. 263
vote-getter statement was followed by a brief, modest public
letter to the people of the State asking for their support. , In a
postscript attached to this letter as published in the Missouri
Intelligencer of August 26, McNair stated that he regretted
that the Journals of the convention had not been dis
tributed, implying the culpability of the leaders of the con
vention, so that the people could see how he and other delegates
had voted. He added that he had and still opposed the high
salaries of the governor and judges and would recommend to
the legislature their alteration. ^^ One of the chief political
assets of McNair was his stand against these high salaries. It
was a popular stand and was reinforced by the fact that he had
voted against incorporating such provisions in the constitu
tion. His record as Register of the St. Louis Land Office was
also a recommendation for him. While holding that position
he had deliberately disregarded the unpopular instructions of
his superior and had granted more than a quarter section of
land to individuals. This action had been opposed by the
land speculators but had met with the approbation of the pioneer
settlers. Further, the fact that McNair's interpretation of the
law on this point was found to be correct and the orders of his
superior were later changed, served to strengthen his cause.^'
The friends of McNair made prominent his military record
and also dwelt on his private life. One writer said that he was
"an exemplary father and husband, and a warm friend." ^*
His hospitality, his private virtues and public services, were
spoken of in the highest terms and little refutation was at
tempted in public by the opposition .2'
A letter was written from St. Louis late in the campaign
accusing McNair of being an emancipator but this charge was
publicly denied by McNair's friends.^* More serious and
better founded charges did appear, however, that were not denied.
He was justly accused of having officially done nothing in the

" The letter was dated St. Louis, July 21, 1820, and the postscript FrankUn,
Aug. 21. 1820.
" Mo. Intell, Aug. 19, 1820, article by "Shelby."
" IMd.
>• Mo. Intell., Aug. 5, 1820, article by "A Citizen."
" IMd., Aug. 26. 1820, article by "A Citizen."

264 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
convention except vote; that no part of the constitution owed
any of its excellence to him; that while the names of Barton,
Bates and Cook were familiar ones in the convention, the name
of McNair meant nothing; that his political aspirations and his
ignorance combined were the reasons of his inactivity in the
convention; that although he was a good citizen, a model hus
band, parent and neighbor, he lacked capacity and independence
to hold the office of governor ; and that he could not be compared
with Clark in knowing law.^' That McNair's methods were not
dissimilar from those later employed by some politicians and
that he was also not free from the strings of financial embarrass
ment, are revealed in the following extract from a private letter
written by the well known St. Louisan, L. Jno. O'FaUon:
"The election is getting very warm — McNair is making the greatest exertions
in the tippUng shops of this place — he can, at any time, now, be found in the back
street, among the dirtiest black guards — asserting, that he must, and will, be elected
— he is much involved in de.. [tom out] ing been protested in bank'four times, [torn
out] to secure the votes and support of his creditors, assures them that his election
will tend much to extricate him from his embarassments — ." "
It is quite probable that at least one of the reasons for
McNair later appointing some of the machine politicians to
office was due to the pressure of these very creditors.
The campaign of John Scott for representative in Congress
was confined to a public address, printed in the newspapers
of the State. In this address Scott urged his past record, his
experience in Congress — which, he said, would be an aid in
securing final admission — , and his success in getting land grants
for Missouri as a State. He concluded by defending his posi
tion in regard to the apportionment of delegates.^" As Scott
had no opponent, no attack was made on his candidacy.
The campaign for the office of lieutenant governor, al
though not so actively conducted as was that for governor,
engaged the attention of more candidates, there being four
that presented their names to the people. The first of these
to announce his position was General Jonathan Ramsay, a
delegate to the convention from Montgomery county.'" The

" Mo. Intell, Aug. 12, 26, 1820, articles by "An Observer."
" Letter dated St. Louis, July 27, 1820, to Gen. T. A. Smith. Smith Mss,
" Mo. Intell, Aug. 12, 1820.
"Mo. Intell, Aug. 5, 1820.

A De Facto State. 265
record made by Ramsay in the convention was a good one.
He was also an honest and able business man and farmer.
His military career in Kentucky was a long and honorable one.
Nothing could be urged against his private life. He lacked,
however, the necessary state-residence qualification of four
years for the office of lieutenant governor and publicly with
drew from the race." Another candidate was the wealthy
St. Louis business man and financier. General Wm. H. Ashley.
Ashley's name had not then become associated with the fur
trade, in which he rose to such prominence, but he was already
one of the most influential men in the State. He had success
fully engaged in manufacturing gunpowder at Potosi, was a
wealthy land owner, a big real estate dealer, and was interested
in the old Bank of St. Louis. His military record in Missouri
was an asset as well as were his long established residence here
and the influence of his wife's relatives in southeast Missouri.'^
The principal opponent of Ashley was Nathaniel Cook, a dele
gate to the convention from Madison county. The two Cooks,
John D. and Nathaniel, were prominent political characters in
southeast Missouri. Both were popular and widely known.
They were, however, in accord with the St. Louis caucus and
this probably detracted much from the influence exerted by
Nathaniel Cook in this campaign." The fourth candidate was
Henry Elliott of Ste. Genevieve. His part in the campaign
was not a conspicuous one.'*
The campaign for the election of state legislators and of
county sheriffs and coroners was noteworthy in the number
of candidates. In Howard county alone there were at least
thirty-nine candidates" and in St. Louis county there were
nineteen for the general assembly alone.'* Sentiment was
strong against electing delegates to the legislature and this
sentiment was given expression at the polls in sending only
seven of the forty-one constitution framers to the first general

" Mo. Intell, Aug. 19, 1820.
"Mo. Intell, Aug. 12, 1820; Houck, Hist of Mo., III. 256f.
"Mo. Intell, Aug. 26, 1820.
"Mo. Intell, Aug. 19, 1820.
•• Mo. Intell, Sept. 2, 1820.
•• Mo. Gaz., Aug. 23, 1820.

266 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
assembly of Missouri, a body with a total membership of fifty-
seven. Besides the general reasons already advanced for this
feeling of opposition, especially those regarding the high salaries
and the caucus, were these : that rotation of office holding should
be favored; that the Journal had not been printed; and that
many delegates had absented themselves on important votes.'*
One writer with asperity urged the voters not to send to the
first State legislature of Missouri as they had to the last terri
torial general assembly "a set of ignoramuses, hardly capable
of reading, much less comprehending the English language,
and woefully deficient in every qualification necessary to con
stitute a legislator." '"
The campaign closed on Saturday, August 26, and the
first State election, in accordance with the provisions of the
schedule of the constitution, was held on the following Monday.
"The day was unusually fine," wrote the editor of the Missouri
Intelligencer, "and the polls well attended," there being over
two thousand votes cast in Howard county alone. He added
that despite the many candidates and the conflicting interests
at stake "the election was conducted with the greatest order
and decorum, and reflects the highest credit on the citizens." *"
None of the newspapers of the State contained accounts to the
contrary regarding the orderliness of the election. The voting
was by ballot.*' Interest centered in the governorship, there
being nine thousand one hundred and thirty-two votes cast
for governor, eight thousand and fifty for lieutenant governor,
and only five thousand three hundred and eighty for repre
sentative. So far as the returns are available today, McNair
run ahead of Clark in most if not all parts of the State by large
majorities. Even in St. Louis county, the headquarters of
the ring, McNair polled twice the votes that Clark did, re
ceiving eight hundred and fifty-nine to his opponent's four
hundred and thirty-one.*^ In St. Charles county Clark was

'• Mo. Intell., Aug. 12, 1820, article by "An Elector."
• • Mo. Intell, Aug. 26, 1820, article by "Howard."
"Mo. Intell, Sept. 2, 1820.
" St. Charles Missourian, July 22, 1820.
"Mo. Intell, Sept. 9, 1820.

A De Facto State. 267
beaten nearly three to one; in Cooper county, four to one; in
Howard and Jefferson counties, nearly two to one; and in Pike
county, McNair and Cook received a majority.*' The official
abstract of the returns as examined by the general assembly
showed that McNair had been elected by a majority of four
thousand and twenty votes, receiving six thousand five hundred
and seventy-six, and Clark, two thousand five hundred and
fifty-six.** Over half the State vote was cast in the counties
of Howard, Cooper, St. Charles, and St. Louis. In these four
counties McNair and Clark each received more than half of
their total support.
The election returns on the lieutenant governor were close.
The withdrawal of Ramsay from the race and the unpopularity
or inconspicuousness of Elliott, left the contest between Ashley
and Cook. The few county returns available show that it was
no man's victory until all the districts had been heard from.
In Howard county Ashley ran ahead of Cook by two hundred
and seventy-six votes, receiving one thousand and thirty-eight
to his opponent's seven hundred and sixty-two; in the ad
joining frontier county of Cooper, Ashley received only two
hundred and ninety-five votes against the five hundred and
seventy-three votes cast for Cook; in St. Charles county Ashley
polled three hundred and fifty-five votes, Cook two hundred and
thirty-nine; while in St. Louis county, the residence of Ashley,
he received only three hundred and thirty-eight while Cook
received eight hundred and eight.*' The abstract of the re
turns examined by the general assembly gave Ashley three
thousand nine hundred and seven votes, Cook three thousand
two hundred and twelve, and Elliott nine hundred and thirty-
one.** In the four counties of Cooper, Howard, St. Charles
and St. Louis, Ashley received fifty-one per cent, of his support
and Cook seventy-four per cent. This seems to show that

"Ibid., Sept. 9, 16, 1820.
" Ibid., Sept. 30. 1820. The .Si. Louis Enquirer, Sept. 19, 1820, stated that
McNair received a majority of three thousand nine hundred and twenty-three
votes over Clark. The journal of the House as copied in the St. Louis Enquirer,
Sept. 23. 1820, gave Clark two thousand six hundred and flfty-two votes.
"Mo. Intell, Sept. 9, 1820.
"Ibid., Sept. 16, 1820; Sl. Louis Enquirer, Sept. 19, 1820.

268 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Cook, the southeast Missouri candidate, was better supported
in St. Louis and the northern counties than Ashley.*'
The members elected to the house of Representatives of
the general assembly were: from Howard county, Andrew S.
McGirk, Elias Elston, Daniel Monroe, Tyre Harris, James
Alcorn, John Ray, Martin Palmer, Samuel Williams ; from Cooper
county, William Lillard, Thomas Rogers, William McFarland,
Thomas Smiley; from Montgomery county, Jesse B. Boone,
Bethel Allen; from Pike county, James Johnson, Daniel Ralls;
from St. Charles county, Joseph Evans, Uriah J. Devore, Wil
liam Smith; from St. Louis county, Joshua Barton, David
Musick, Henry Walton, John S. Ball, Alexander Stewart, Marie
P. Leduc; from Franklin county, Philip Boulware,  ; from
Lincoln county, Morgan Wright ; from Jefferson county, William
Bates; from Washington county, George Hudspeth, Robert M.
Stevenson; from Ste. Genevieve county, James Caldwell, Joab
Waters, Daniel [or David] Murphy, James H. Relfe; from Cape
Girardeau county, Joseph McFerron, Edmund Rutter, Thomas
W. Graves, Robert English; from New Madrid county, John
Hall, Richard H. Waters; from Madison county, Samuel D.
Strother, and from Wayne county, Ezekiel Rubottom.** Of
these forty-three representatives elected to the first general
assembly of the State of Missouri, one, the unknown repre
sentative from Franklin county, died before taking his seat in
that body; two, Ray and Ralls, died while the legislature was
in session in 1820; one, Boone, died just after the close of the
session; and two. Barton and McFerron, resigned before the
end of the first session.*" John G. Heath, a former delegate
to the convention, was elected to fill the term of the unknown
Franklin county representative; Duff Green, another delegate,
was elected to take Ray's seat ; no one seems to have been elected

" Pike county also went for Cook. Mo. Intell, Sept. 16, 1820.
" Mo. Intell, Sept. 30, Oct. 14, 1820.
'• Regarding the unknown FrankUn county representative see Mo. Senate
Journal, 1820, p. 60. Ray died in St. Louis on Oct. 13, 1820. (Ibid., p. 51.)
Ralls died in St. Louis on or about Oct. 30 or 31, 1820. His funeral was held
on Oct. 31. (Ibid., pp. 82f.) Boone died in St. Louis on Dec. 22, 1820. (Mo.
Intell, Jan. 1, 1821.) Barton resigned on Sept. 21, 1820. (Mo. Intell, Oct.
14, 1820; St. Louis Enquirer, Sept. 30, 1820.) McFerron resigned in Nov. 1820.
(Mo. Intell, Dec. 9, 1820.)

A De Facto State. 269
at this session to fill the place of Ralls; Henry S. Geyer was
elected to Barton's seat; and William (?) Dougherty was prob
ably the man elected to take McFerron's place.'" The resig
nation of Barton was caused by his seeking the office of secretary
of state; that of McFerron, by his being appointed to a circuit
clerkship. The fourteen members of the senate elected at this election
were: from Howard and Cooper counties, Benjamin Cooper,
Bennett Clark, Richard W. Cummins, Elias Barcroft; from
Montgomery and Franklin, James Talbott; from St. Charles,
Benjamin Emmons; from St. Louis, Silas Bent, Mathias Mc
Girk; from Jefferson and Washington, Samuel Perry; from Ste.
Genevieve, Isidore Moore; from Madison and Wayne, David
Logan; from Cape Girardeau and New Madrid, George F.
Bollinger, Abraham Byrd; and from Lincoln and Pike, Samuel
K. Caldwell." McGirk later resigned to accept a Supreme
Court judgeship.'^ Of these fourteen senators three, or twenty-
one per cent., had been delegates to the convention; of the
forty-three representatives only five, including Heath, or eleven
per cent., had been delegates.
The ablest members of the lower house were Joshua Barton
and his successor, Henry S. Geyer; those in the senate were
Benjamin Emmons, Silas Bent, Mathias McGirk and Samuel
Perry. The character of the membership of both chambers
did not begin to equal that of the convention. Many were
men of little or no political experience and never rose to prom
inence. The leaders and the best minds of Missouri were in
the convention, and the first general assembly was not a pro-
convention body. The people had, with few exceptions, passed
by their politicians and sent untrained men to legislate for
them. The leaders waited and as popular indignation over
high salaries and other measures subsided, they gradually came
back. Thus while only seven delegates were in the beginning
elected to the first general assembly, two more. Heath and
Green, were added to the number by the close of the last session;

"Mo. Senate Journal p. 60; Mo. Intell, Nov. 4, Dec. 9. 1820.
•' Mo. Intell, Sept. 30, 1820.
" Mo. Senate Journal, 1820, p. 141.

270 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
and in the second general assembly, eleven delegates were
seated." The first general assembly of the State of Missouri, in
accordance with the constitution, convened in St. Louis on the
third Monday in September, the 18th, 1820. The place of
meeting for this session was the Missouri Hotel, — a fine, three-
story, stone building, erected by Thomas Brady in 1819 and
opened by David Massey in 1820. Walter B. Stevens, the St.
Louis historian, thus describes this structure : "One of the most
notable landmarks of the town of St. Louis disappeared in 1873,
when the old Missouri hotel was razed, to give place to a business
structure. In its day this was the finest hotel in the West.
It was commenced in 1817 and was completed two years later.
When the property passed into the hands of Major Biddle an
addition was built to increase the accommodations. The
Major went east and procured a professional hotel-keeper, who
opened the house with an equipment and appointments which
made it the hotel of the Missouri Valley." '*
The two chambers met separately and the members present
having produced their credentials, were sworn and proceeded
to organize. The house elected James Caldwell, speaker;
John McArthur, clerk; and George W. Ferguson, door-keeper."
All these offices were contested. The election of Caldwell, of
Ste. Genevieve, over Stewart, of St. Louis, showed the strength
of the southeast Missouri forces. Later in the session John
Rice Jones was appointed clerk pro tempore of the house in the
absence of McArthur, and on November Sth, Jones was elected
chief clerk of the house.'* The senate unanimously elected
Silas Bent president pro tempore; John S. Brickey, clerk pro
tempore; and Jabez Warner, doorkeeper. Brickey after two
viva voce votes was then elected clerk" and later in the session
Thompson Douglass was elected assistant clerk.'* The election

" Off. Manual of Mo., 1914-15, p. 150.
"Stevens, St. Louis, p. 119; Billon, Annals, 1804-1821, p. 106, a picture of
the hotel is opposite p. 106. The hotel was located on the southwest comer of
Main and Oak Streets, now North Main and North H. Streets.
" Sl. Louis Enquirer, Sept. 23, 1820; Mo. Intell, Sept. 30, 1820.
•• Senate Journal 1820, pp. 43f., 81, 101.
" Ibid.
" Senate Journal, 1820, p. 41.

A De Facto State. 271
of Bent, of St. Louis, showed the strength of the St. Louis and
northern county senators and this strength was never seriously
threatened during the session. At 4 P. M. the senate and house
assembled in the chamber of the latter and agreeable to the
constitution made an official count of the votes for governor
and lieutenant governor. A committee of three from each
house was appointed to inform McNair and Ashley of their
election and to request their presence before the general as
sembly to be qualified. At 11 A. M., on September 19, Governor
McNair and Lieutenant Governor Ashley appeared before the
joint session of the general assembly and in their presence took
the oaths of office. At 4 o'clock of the same day, Governor
McNair delivered in person his first message.'" This first mes
sage of the first governor of the State of Missouri was, unlike the
majority of its successors, brief. It contained only one specific
recommendation regarding legislation — the advisability of mak
ing provision for the appointing of presidential electors from
Missouri. Nine days after this first message Governor McNair
issued a proclamation declaring the election of John Scott as
representative to Congress from Missouri.*"
The first days of the session were spent in preliminary
work. Committees, standing and special, were appointed, of
which the most important were on claims, grievances, constitu
tional provisions, permanent and temporary seats of govern
ment, militia, vice and immorality, census, slaves, roads and
bridges, and the great seal of the State." In spirit with the
governor's message, a resolution was offered on the third day
in the house that stated it was inexpedient at that session to
legislate further than was necessary for organizing the govern
ment and appointing officers. This resolution was tabled.*^
From almost the beginning of the session several important
questions were under discussion that involved spirited contests.
The principal ones were the election of the two United States
senators from Missouri, the location of the temporary seat of

'• Ibid.
"Mo. Gaz., Oct. 11, 1820. Scott received flve thousand three hundred and
eighty votes. The proclamation was dated Sept. 28, 1820.
•> Mo. Intell, Oct. 14, 1820; Sl. Louis Enquirer, Sept. 30, 1820.
" St. Louis Enquirer, Sept. 30, 1820.

272 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
government, and the proposing of constitutional amendments.
The first was settled within two weeks, the second towards the
end of the session, and the last was defeated.
The election of the two United States senators from Mis
souri had been before the public from the meeting of the con
vention. It had done much to bring about the St. Louis caucus
and had been instrumental in defeating Clark. The August
election had not settled the question, it had merely drawn the
conflicting forces farther apart, cementing the elements in each.
The convening of the legislature brought the subject up for
final settlement. The house on the day following its organiza
tion had before it a resolution providing for the senatorial
election being held on September 25th. This resolution was
received on September 20th on motion of Ball of St. Louis.*'
An election on the 25th would probably have meant Benton's
defeat, owing to the lack of time his forces would have had in
securing sufficient votes.
The first law passed by the general assembly of the State
of Missouri was on this question of electing United States
senators. It was signed by the governor on September 28th.**
The law provided for a joint session of both houses and for a
simple majority vote of the votes cast. By a joint resolution
passed on September 29th, the first election for this purpose
was set at 3 o'clock P. M., on Monday, October 2nd.*' Ac
cording to the provisions of this resolution and the law governing
senatorial elections, the senate and house convened in the
chamber of the latter. The votes were cast viva voce: an attempt
had been made in the Senate to obtain a vote by ballot but this
was lost by a large majority." The results of the election were
as follows: Barton received thirty-four votes; Benton, twenty-
seven; John B. C. Lucas, sixteen; Henry Elliott, ten; John Rice
Jones, nine; Nathaniel Cook, eight. There were fifty-two
members of the general assembly voting, and as twenty-seven

¦> St. Louis Enquirer, Sept. 30, 1820.
"Laws of Mo., 1820. pp. 3f.
•' Senate Journal, p. 28.
"Senate Journal pp. 32, 34; Mo. Intell, Oct. 14, 1820; St. Louis Enquirer,
Oct. 7, 1820.

A De Facto State. 273
votes was a majority, Barton and Benton had been elected
Missouri's first United States Senators.
The election was dramatic. According to rumour, which
has never been disproved and which fits admirably into place
with undisputed and authentic historical facts, the votes of
two men, — one, Daniel Ralls, who from his death-bed of twelve
hours later cast his vote for Benton, and the other, Marie P.
Leduc, who, hating Benton, was persuaded by his French
friends to vote for him instead of Lucas, — finally determined
the elevation of Thomas Hart Benton to the United States
Senate.*' The work and the credit, however, of securing the
larger number of the other twenty-five votes for Benton be
longed to one, who within four years was treated as an enemy
by Benton and who within a decade was defeated for reelection
by him, — David Barton. The history of Missouri nowhere
reveals so unnatural a deed, so perfidious an act, as the turning
of Benton against Barton. The faults of Barton were many
but his ability and honesty were never questioned and his
nature was the most lovable. The public character and mind
of Benton were perfect, but his domineering, brutal, conceited
disposition was apparent in most of his work. One of the
foulest blots in the life of the Great Statesman was this defeating
the friend who had raised him to the heights of a conqueror.
Barton wagered even his popularity in overcoming the un
popularity of Benton. The latter could never have won victory
in 1820 without the unselfish support of his friend. The pop
ular condemnation of Benton's brutal murder of the talented
son of Judge Lucas had not subsided and he was frequently
referred to as the man of blood, the assassin.** For Barton to
have thus jeopardized his position for Benton and for Benton
to have so perfidiously betrayed Barton, is one of the tragedies
in the political history of the State.
The votes cast for the senatorial candidates were sectional.
These votes showed that St. Louis and the north Missouri
counties, including Cooper, were in control of the legislature.
All except five of the votes for Barton came from these quarters
" Darby. Recollections, pp. 29fl.
•' Mo. Gaz., spring and summer of 1820.
M &— 18

274 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
and similarly all except six for Benton. Lucas received his
support, except three votes, from south of the river, and was
unable to obtain a single vote from St. Louis county. The
opposition of independent men to Lucas was based on his strict
construction of the laws governing the old Spanish land claims.
This was played upon by the Benton forces and is said to have
induced Leduc to cast his vote for Benton. Elliott received
his support from south of the river but none from St. Louis
county. Jones received one vote each from St. Louis and St.
Charles counties and his other votes from south of the river.
Cook received his support from the counties north of the river
and from Cooper and St. Louis counties.*" The concentration
of the anti-Benton men on one candidate would easily have
defeated Benton. That there were any Benton votes cast for
the other candidates is improbable considering the thorough
campaign waged by Benton and Barton to secure support.
Out-rivaling the interest and controversy created by the
senatorial election, was the struggle over the location of the
temporary seat of government. Although not as important
as the present day question of prohibition, the location of the
temporary seat of government was none the less the great ob
structive measure before the first State general assembly. This
question held the attention of the legislators from September
20th to November 25th, a period of sixty-six days out of an
eighty-six day session. The ties of political leadership were
broken and the interests of sections became supreme. Judging
from the time spent and the number of votes taken, the location
of the temporary seat of government was seemingly regarded
as the most weighty problem that confronted the new State.
The subject was brought before the house in a resolution
introduced by Devore, of St. Charles. This resolution, which
was tabled, stated that it was then expedient to adjourn the
present session from St. Louis to  .'" The house then
passed a bill locating the temporary seat of government at
Potosi." The senate struck out Potosi and inserted Cote Sans

•• St. Louis Enquirer, Oct. 7, 1820; Senate Journal, p. 28.
'» St Louis Enquirer, Sept. 30, 1820. Introduced Sept. 20, 1820.
" Mo. Gaz., Oct. 25, 1820; Mo. Intell, Nov. 4, 1820.

A De Facto State. 275
Dessein.'^ The house struck out Cote Sans Dessein by a vote
of twenty-four to eleven. A motion was made to insert St.
Louis, this lost by a vote of six to twenty-nine; St. Charles was
then proposed and voted down; Franklin lost by twelve to
twenty- three ; Florissant, by seven to twenty-eight; St. Charles
again lost, by fifteen to twenty ; Boonville, by thirteen to twenty-
two. By a vote of eighteen to seventeen — all eighteen votes
being from St. Louis, Cooper, and the north Missouri counties —
the house decided to leave untouched, but did not adopt, the
senate's amendment." The question was not brought up
again in the house for ten days, which time was probably em
ployed by the representatives in lobbying for votes. On re
consideration of the question, Franklin was proposed and lost;
St. Charles, Boonville, St. Louis, Ste. Genevieve and Her
culaneum, were each in turn voted down ; finally by the close vote
of twenty to nineteen Franklin was inserted, and the amended
bill returned to the senate.'* The senate refused to concur in
the amendment of the house and a joint conference committee
of three members from each body was appointed." After
considering the subject for a week, this committee being unable
to agree was discharged.'* McGirk, of St. Louis, then had a
resolution adopted by the senate requesting the house for a
simple conference. Before the house had replied, McGirk in
troduced in the Senate a resolution locating the temporary
seat of government at St. Louis. Emmons, of St. Charles, had
this last resolution amended by striking out St. Louis, the vote
being seven to three." St. Charles was then voted down by
four to six; Franklin, by two to eight; Potosi, by five to five.
Moore, of Ste. Genevieve, tried to have the question postponed
until March 1, 1821, but was defeated one to eleven.'* St.
Louis was then decided on by a vote of six to six and the presi
dent of the senate voting affirmatively. This vote was recon
sidered by a vote of six to six and the president voting affirma-

" Ibid.
" IMd.
'< Ibid.
" Senate Journal p. 98.
"Senate Journal, pp. 117, 119.
" Ibid.
'¦ Ibid., p. 122.

276 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
tively. St. Louis than lost by five to seven; Potosi, by four to
eight; St. Charles by six to six, the president voting in the
negative; and Newport, in Franklin county, by two to ten.'"
The simple conference requested of the house was then dis
charged by the senate and on motion of McGirk, of St. Louis,
the senate by a vote of seven to five decided to adhere to its
original amendment, i. e.. Cote Sans Dessein.*" The house
adhered to its amendment in favor of Franklin, and the original
bill with the various amendments was lost. The house then
appointed a committee which brought in a new bill. It is
probable, but not certain, that St. Charles was decided upon
in this bill.*' The Senate took up the new house bill, rushed
it through and adopted it with an amendment in one day by
a vote of seven to five. The house concurred in the amendment
on November 25th, the bill received the governor's signature
on the same day.** By this law the seat of government was
located at the town of St. Charles until October 1, 1826. On
motion of McGirk, of St. Louis, the following propositions of
the citizens of St. Charles were entered on the journal of the
senate: The undersigned, for and in behalf of the citizens of St. Charles, pledge
themselves, should the temporary seat of government be established at that place,
to furnish free of expense to the state, rooms suitable for the accommodation of
both branches of the General Assembly, and also committee rooms."
Sth November, 1820. Benjamin Emmons,
WilUam Smith,
Uriah J. Devore,
Joseph Evans,
Nathaniel Simonds,
R. & J. Heath."
The consideration of the location of the temporary seat of
government had brought forward the claims of nine counties
for this honor, and had wasted the energies of the general
assembly for over two-thirds of the session.
Surpassing in importance, both in worth and in public
opinion, the location of the temporary seat of government,

" Ibid., p. 123.
'" IMd., p. 124.
" IMd., pp. 126, 136.
"IMd., p. 139; Mo. Laws, 1820, p. 37.
¦¦ Senate Journal, p. 139. Cf., Enquirer, Oct. 1821, editorials.

A De Facto State. 277
were the amendments proposed to the constitution. Although
the legislators settled, or rather defeated, the latter in little
time and although the struggle over these amendments could
not compare with that waged over the temporary capital, to
the people of the State the constitutional amendments were
the greatest pieces of legislation before the general assembly.
Even before the constitution had been adopted, several serious
criticisms were current regarding some of its provisions. During
the campaign in July and August, 1820, these criticisms became
stronger. To the people the constitution had several defects
and it was the wish of the voters that the first general assembly
begin the correcting of these defects. The high minimum
salaries provided for the governor and the judges, the creation
of the new office of chancellor, and to some degree the life term
of judges and their appointive tenure by the governor and sen
ate, were unpopular. The high salary clauses and the chan
cellor clause were especially subjected to popular condemna
tion. If there was any single purpose that guided the voters
on August 28th, it was to elect legislators and a governor that
would strike these sections off the constitution. The people,
however, were to temporarily experience the defeat of their
wishes in this first session of their lawmakers. Only one thing
was and is today certain in this respect, that eventually the
wishes of the people prevail. The special session of the first
State general assembly did in 1821 what the first session failed
to do in 1820, and the second State general assembly endorsed
the work of the special session.
Petitions from the inhabitants of Madison and Cape Girar
deau counties on amendments to the constitution were pre
sented to the house in October.** Similar ones were circulated
in nearly one-half of the counties, and these were presented
to the legislature, but the lack of a complete journal of both
houses and the gaps in the newspapers, prevent the securing
of accurate information as to the names of these counties.*'
Governor McNair sent a special message to both branches
of the legislature recommending an alteration in the constitu-

"Mo. Intell, Nov. 4, 1820.
•' (Jackson) Independent Patriot Dec. 30, 1820.

278 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
tion in regard to lowering the salaries of the judges.*'*. The
consideration of the subject and of other proposed amendments
was not seriously begun, however, until the latter part of No
vember. The following amendments were then brought up
for a vote in the house:
Proposed amendments to the Constitution.
Be it proposed by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, That
amendments be made to the Constitution of this state, in the foUowing articles
and sections, thereof as foUows: Article 3d
Sec. 34. — The General Assembly may estabUsh new counties and flx county
Une in such manner as they may deem expedient. Provided., That no county
now established or hereafter to be estabUshed, shaU thereby be reduced to a less
superficial extent than four hundred square miles.
Article Ifth
Sec. 13. — The salary of the Govemor may be either less or more than two
thousand dollars annually to be fixed by law from time to time.
Sec. 23. — The General Assembly shaU not provide that sheriffs, and coroners
be otherwise appointed than by election of the qualified electors.
Article Sth
Sec. 1. — The office of Chancellor shall be and the same is hereby abolished.
Sec. 5. — The General Assembly shall not direct that the supreme court be
held at one place only.
Sec. 9, 10, & 11. — The court of chancery and the circuit courts shaU always
have original jurisdiction in all matters of equity and a general control over
executors, administrators, guardians and minors, subject to appeal in aU cases
to the supreme court, under such limitations as the general assembly may by
law provide. Sec. 13. — The compensation to each of the Judges of the supreme and circuit
courts and chancellor may be less than two thousand dollars annually to be flxed
by law from time to time, and the Judges of the supreme court. Judges of the cir
cuit courts and chancellor shall hold their respective offices during six years from
and after their respective appointments, and until their successors shall be duly
appointed and qualified, who shall be chosen by joint vote of both houses of the
General Assembly.
Sec. 16. — Any judge of the supreme or circuit courts and chancellor shall
be removed from office, on the address of two-thirds of each House of the General
Assembly to the Governor for that purpose.
as a new article
That no person holding any office under the United States shaU be eUgible
or appointed to any offlce under the authority of this state."
Geyer, of St. Louis, moved to postpone the further consider
ation of these amendments until the next session, but his motion

••a St. Louis Enquirer, Oct. 14, 1820. The date and complete content of
this message Is not knotm.
" (Jackson) Independent Patriot, Dec. 30, 1820.

A De Facto State, 279
failed to carry. McGirk, of Howard, then submitted the fol
lowing resolution:
"Resolved, That we deem It inexpedient at this sesssion of the present General
Assembly to propose any amendments to the constitution.
1st — Because one-half of the people of this state have not petitioned that
amendments should be proposed without which we cannot know their trill,
2nd — Because we have not been admitted into the Federal union, until
which time we deem a change Inexpedient — and
3rd — Because we deem it inexpedient to change our constitution until time
and experience wiU shew [sic] that our constitution is defective and ought to be
changed." ¦'
This resolution was lost by a vote of eight to twenty-six.
Of the eight votes cast affirmatively, three were from St. Louis;
two, from Franklin; one each, from New Madrid, Cooper and
Howard. Despite the provision in the amending clause of the
constitution requiring an affirmative vote of two-thirds of all
the members elected to each house to propose and to adopt
amendments, Rutter, of Cape Girardeau, submitted a resolu
tion that a two- thirds vote of the members present was sufficient.
This was lost by a vote of eleven to twenty-three. Of the
eleven votes favoring this obviously illegal resolution, three
were from Cape Girardeau, two each, from Washington and
Ste. Genevieve, one each, from St. Charles, Pike, Cooper and
Madison. After this preliminary skirmish the house took up
the consideration of the several amendments proposed. The
vote on the first amendment submitted was seventeen to seven
teen and was widely distributed both among counties and
among representatives from a county, excepting, however, the
counties of Ste. Genevieve, which gave the amendment its
entire support, and St. Louis and New Madrid, which opposed
the amendment with all their votes. The vote on the salary
of the governor was twenty-seven to seven. The seven votes
cast against this popular measure were distributed as follows:
three from St. Louis, two from Franklin, and one each, from
New Madrid and Howard. The vote on the amendment
prohibiting the legislature from changing the tenure of the
sheriff and coroner was eighteen to sixteen. Of the sixteen
votes against this measure, twelve of the fifteen counties were
represented — ^St. Charles cast three; St. Louis and Cooper
each, two; others scattering. The vote on the amendment
" Ibid. AU proceedings of the house are from same source.

280 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
abolishing the office of chancellor was twenty-five to ten: the
ten negative votes were distributed as follows — St. Louis,
four; New Madrid and Howard, each two; Franklin and Ste.
Genevieve, each one. The vote on the proposed amendment
to section five of article five was twenty- two to thirteen, and
on the amendment to sections nine, ten and eleven, of article
five, was twenty-five to eleven. The amendment to section
thirteen, of article five, was divided into two parts. The vote
on the salary of the judges was twenty-seven to nine. The
nine negative votes were distributed as follows: four from St.
Louis; two each, from New Madrid and Howard; one from
Franklin. The vote on the six years term for judges and for
the appointive tenure by a joint vote of both houses, was twenty-
seven to nine. The nine negative votes cast on this measure
were distributed as follows: St. Louis four; New Madrid two;
Franklin, Howard and Ste. Genevieve, each one. The back
bone of all this opposition was: Ball, Geyer, Leduc and Walton
of St. Louis; Hall and Waters of New Madrid; Heath of Frank
lin; Relfe of Ste. Genevieve; Williams and McGirk of Howard.
The vote on the amendment proposed to section sixteen of
article five was eighteen to sixteen. The negative votes were
distributed as follows: four from St. Louis; three each from
Howard and Cooper; and two from St. Charles; one each from
Jefferson, New Madrid, Franklin, and Ste. Genevieve. The
vote on the new article was twenty-four to eleven. The eleven
negative votes were distributed as follows: four from St. Louis;
two each, from St. Charles and New Madrid; one each from
Franklin, Cooper and Howard. Since the constitutional ma
jority of two- thirds of the members elected would have neces
sitated twenty-nine votes, and since no measure received more
than twenty-seven votes, all of the amendments submitted
were lost.
While the house was attempting to pass its proposed
amendments, the senate was considering three that had origi
nated there. These three senate amendments were as follows:
Article 4th.
Sect. 13. The governor shall receive an annual compensation for his services,
to be flxed by law, which shall not be dimiiushed during his continuance in office.

A De Facto State. 281
Article Sth.
Sect. 1. That the office of Chancellor shall be aboUshed, and the chancery
powers sbaU be vested in the supreme and circuit courts, in such manner as the
general assembly shall by law pro-vide. Article Sth.
Sect. 13. That the judges of the supreme and circuit courts, and chancellor,
if not aboUshed, shaU hold their offices during six years from and after their
respective appointments, unless sooner removed; who shall be chosen by a joint
vote of the Senate and House of Representatives of the state; and the compen
sation of the said judges and chancellor, if his offlce be not abolished, may be less
than two thousand dollars, annually, to be fixed by law from time to time."
These amendments passed the senate on November 28th, by
large majorities, the largest number of negative votes being
two.*" These measures, unlike those considered, in the house,
were all important ones and were popular with the people. On
being brought to a vote in the house, they all failed to pass,
and an attempt was even made and received eight votes, to
postpone the further consideration of amendments."" The
opposition of less than a dozen representatives, in some instances
of only eight representatives, had thwarted not only the wishes
of the legislature but those of the people of the State. The
leaders of this small but well knit opposition were McGirk of
Howard county and Geyer of St. Louis county. Their
ability as politicians aided by the provisions in the amending
clause of the constitution enabled them to successfully stand in
the way of what the voters and their representatives desired.
From the standpoint of the worth of the amendments, there
was as much to censure as to favor in them: from the viewpoint
of the people, however, the amendments were desirable.
The action of the house in refusing to decrease the salaries
of the governor and judges was in accord with their previous
act of allowing a fair if not a high compensation, considering
the times, to members and officers of the general assembly.
The latter bill was the first to receive the veto of a governor
of this State and was also the first to become a law over that
veto. This compensation bill originated in the house and having
passed both chambers, was placed in the hands of the governor.
The governor courageously withheld his signature and returned

" (Jackson) Independent Patriot, Dec. 23. 1820.
•• Senate Journal, pp. 142f.
" (Jackson) Independent Patriot, Dec. 23. 1820.

282 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
the bill to the place of its inception accompanied by the follow
ing enlightened and public spirited message:
A communication from the Govemor "To the Senate and House of Repre
sentatives. "I have had under consideration the bill passed by the two Houses of the
General Assembly entitled, "an act regulating the compensation of the members
of the General Assembly:" and after bestowing on its provisions that deUberation
and reflection due to its importance, I feel bound to withhold my approbation.
"1. In pursuance of that system of economy which the financial condition
of the state requires, I have already deemed it expedient to recommend a reduction
in other branches of pubUc expenditure. The aUowance of the contemplated
pay to the members of the General Assembly, would seem to me inconsistent
with, and a clear departure from that system.
"2. If the bill were to operate on the present session only, though I might
still think it objectionable, I might not think it imperatively my duty to interpose
the executive veto; but as the commencement of a system which might be drawn
into dangerous precedents, I cannot suppress my objections, particiUarly when
I reflect, that all experience shows it is much easier to increase than diminish
an aUowance, when once estabUshed in the beginning.
"For these reasons I have felt it my duty to withhold my approbation of the
before mentioned biU, which together with my objections, is herewith returned
to the House of Representatives.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, your ob't. serv.t.
St. Louis, 17th Oct. 1820. A. M'Nau-." "
The house by the large majority vote of twenty-eight to
seven passed the bill over the governor's veto and on the follow
ing day, October 19th, the senate, by a vote of nine to three, gave
it the force of a law, — it being signed by the presiding officer
of each chamber."* This law regulated the per diem compensa
tion of members of the general assembly for attendance at four
dollars ; of the presiding officers and the chief clerk of each house
at five dollars; of the two assistant clerks at four dollars; and
of the two doorkeepers at three dollars. The clerical force of
the legislature was, as is seen from this law, ridiculously small
in comparison with that employed in later days: and the omis
sion of a regular staff and company of salaried pages and janitors
is beyond the appreciation of one familiar with the payroll of a
twentieth century state legislature. The members and the
presiding officers of both houses were further allowed mileage
at the rate of three dollars for every twenty- five miles "they
must necessarily travel, going to and from the said assemblies." "'
Such were the extravagant salaries carried in this law that pro-
" Senate Journal pp. 58f; Mo. Gaz., Oct. 25, 1820; Mo. Intell, Nov. 11.
1820. " Senate Journal pp.. S8ff ; Mo. Intell. Nov. 18. 1820.
" Mo. Laws, 1820. pp. 34f.

A De Facto State. 283
voked the first State governor of Missouri to say: "I have
felt it my duty to withhold my approbation of the before men
tioned bill." Considered in the light of modern times, this
law and its brief history cause us to waver between two con
victions — praise of the courage of Governor McNair and praise
of the modesty of the first State general assembly of Missouri."*
Nothing reveals so clearly the limited character of govern
mental activities in the new State and the economy adopted
in conducting these activities, as a survey of the State's finances
in 1820, including budget making, taxes and appropriations.
The first State general assembly of Missouri with businesslike
forethought resolved to estimate the probable income and ex
penses of the State before le-vying taxes or passing appropriation
bills. This body being practically unlimited in its financial
powers, decided to equalize the revenues and expenditures by
providing new taxes or raising old ones and by economizing
in appropriation items. The senate finance committee reported
a budget for the year 1820-1821 which was the basis of the
financial legislation of the session."' The probable annual
expenditures were estimated by this committee as follows:
General Assembly — pay of members, rent, contingent expenses, sta
tionery, printing laws and journals, etc., for a sixty day session. . $20,000
Salary of Govemor  $2 , 000
Salary of three Supreme Court Judges  6 , 000
Salary of Chancellor  2,000
Salary of four Circuit Judges  8,000 18,000
Salary of Sec. of State, Attomey General, Auditor and Treas
urer  3,000
Contingent Expenses  4 , 000
Total  $45,000
The probable annual revenue was estimated as follows:
"The amount of revenue produced by the territorial mode of taxation
for the year ending on the first Monday of December, 1819, was. . $24,424
"The conflrmed lands within the Umits of the state, are 1,087,143
acres, which being taxed as is proposed in the report, at one doUar
per hundred acres, would produce, in addition to revenue by the
territorial mode of taxation, the sum of  4,348
" The constitution gave the general assembly unlimited power to set their
own compensation. Mo. Const, 1820, III. 24.
" Senate Journal, pp. 74ff. Emmons was chairman. Report was made
on Oct. 27.

284 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
"The lands sold by the United States on the 30th day of September.
1820, amounted to 1,250,934 acres, which being taxed as is pro
posed in the report, would produce the sum of  $12 ,609
$41,281
The report added that this would leave "a deficit of $3,719.00,
to be provided for by the revenue arising from the increased
tax on slaves; the tax on the military bounty lands; sales at
auction; the tax on law process, and on bank stock; which will
be amply sufficient, in the opinion of the committee, to make
up the deficit, and meet all the drawbacks which will be oc
casioned by these lands forfeited to the United States, by reason
of the purchaser not making payment."
The general assembly followed in general the recommenda
tions of this report in regard to raising revenue and making
appropriations. A general land, lot, and improved real estate
tax was imposed at the rate of twenty-five cents on the hun
dred dollar valuation; slaves and live stock over three years
old were taxed at the same rate; pleasure carriages, at one
per cent, of their value; furniture, at fifty cents on the hundred
dollars; watches, at two dollars on the hundred dollars (both
furniture and watches on sale were exempted from these taxes) ;
and a poll tax of one dollar was imposed on free, white males
over twenty-one years old. Special and license taxes were
imposed on a number of objects and occupations, the most
important being: a twenty dollar wine and liquor license for
every six months ; a merchants and peddlers tax of fifteen dollars
to two hundred dollars every six months for the sale of foreign
made goods; an auction tax of three dollars per one hundred
dollars on personal property and one dollar and a half per one
hundred dollars on real estate; an auctioneer's license of one
hundred dollars for every six months; a ferry license tax; and a
billiard table license of fifty dollars for every six months."* The
appropriation bill passed at this session carried a total of
$49,359.13 J^. The most important items in this bill were:"'
Salary of the governor and eight judges  $18,000.00
Salary of the secretary of state, auditor, treasurer, attomey general,
adjutant general, and circuit attorneys  3 , 590 . 00
Contingent expenses of the offlce of secretary of state  500 . 00
•• Mo. Laws, 1820, pp. 90f; 92f; 76fl; 83fl; 61f.
" Mo. Laws, 1820, pp. 82f.

A De Facto State, 285
Pay of the members of the general assembly, offlcers, and presiden
tial electors  $25 , 000 . 00
Printing laws and Journals of the session  1,200.00
Contingent expenses of the session, including furniture, sundry
printing, stationery, fuel and janitor service, election returns
of the governor and Ueutenant governor, rent, state seal, etc . . 1 , 069 . 13 M
Total  $49,359.13K
Some of the separate items in this bill together with the incred
ible accuracy of the appropriation made for them, are remark
able. Only $267.11 were spent by this general assembly for
its contingent printing and the representatives and senators
used only $166.50 for stationery. The total printing bill of
the state, excluding the constitutional convention, amounted
to only $1,467.11; today the annual State printing is close to
$150,000. This general assembly spent the ridiculous sum of
$50 for janitor service and for fuel of the senate, and $130 for
these items of the house. Such economy is wonderful. Five
dollars was appropriated to G. Bassinet for making a model of
the State seal, and $25.12J^ was appropriated for the sundry
expenses of the senate. Such economy if not parsimony is
today unheard of and its early return is unlikely."*
Those salaries of all state officers that were not set by the
constitution were provided for by legislative enactment. The
salary of the attorney general was placed at five hundred dollars
a year and of the secretary of state, auditor, and treasurer,
each at seven hundred and fifty dollars a year."" The ap
pointment of persons to these offices and to the judiciary, was
an important political function of the governor and the legis
lature. Many applicants advanced their claims and as one
observer wrote "it was a good thing to have a friend at court." '""
Governor McNair was naturally criticised for many of his acts
and especially for his appointments. The latter criticism was,
however, based more on disappointed ambitions than on facts.
One of the foremost and ablest public men of the State was
•" No money was appropriated in 1820 even for the pay of Gov. McNair's
private secretary, William G. Pettus. who was probably compensated by the
governor from his private purse.
•' Mo. Laws, 1820, pp. 38f, 66, 87fl.
'"Mo. Intell, Jan. 1, 1821.

286 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
appointed secretary of state. Joshua Barton was an eminent
lawyer and an honest public official. His election to the sec
retaryship of state was but a recognition of his talents. Edward
Bates was appointed attorney general ; William Christy, auditor ;
and Pierre Didier, treasurer. The conspicuous part played by
Bates in the convention first brought him prominently before
the people. His connection with the caucus was not close.
His friends were supporters of both Clark and McNair. His
integrity was never questioned and, although a young man,
he was well versed in the law. Notwithstanding the recom
mendation of Bates made by McNair, the senate refused at
first to confirm him. McNair sent a second communication
on Bates to that body, which then endorsed his nomination.'"'
William Christy was a native of Pennsylvania, was reared in
that State and in Kentucky, and came to St. Louis in 1804.
He had served as auditor for the Territory and was a prominent
politician.'"^ Pierre Didier was a native of St. Louis and his
appointment to the office of State treasurer by the general
assembly was probably due to the influence exerted for him
by his French friends in St. Louis and the adjoining counties.'"'
The appointment of the judges, including three of the supreme
court, a chancellor, and four judges for the circuit courts, was
a long drawn out struggle between the governor and the senate.
The senate sat behind closed doors and at least two of the
governor's candidates were rejected. It is probable that those
finally appointed either owed their office as much to the senate
as to the governor or were compromise appointees.'"* The
supreme court judges finally appointed were Mathias McGirk,
senator from St. Louis county, John D. Cook, of Cape Girar
deau county, and John Rice Jones, of Washington county.
Cook and Jones had been delegates to the constitutional con
vention and had been active leaders in that body. The former
was barely qualified to serve as judge on account of his youth.

'"Senate Journal, 1820, p. 36.
i"» Houck, Hist. Mo., III. 48.
' " The offlce of State treasurer was flUed according to the constitution by
the general assembly, the governor having no voice in selecting the occupant.
>»' Sl. Louis Enquirer, Nov. 18, 1820, editorial.

A De Facto State. 287
the latter on account of his age.'"' McGirk resigned his seat
in the senate on November 27th, in order to accept the appoint
ment to the supreme court bench.'"* He had served in the
Territorial Council and this was the only public office he
had filled. Like John D. Cook, McGirk was a young man
being barely thirty years of age. He was a popular man but
was not especially learned in the law. He served, however,
as supreme court judge for twenty-one years and it is said that
his opinions in the first six volumes of the Missouri Reports
will compare favorably with those of any other judge of his
time.'"' William Harper was appointed chancellor. Little is
known regarding his life but it is presumed that he later went
to South Carolina several years after his office had been abol
ished in Missouri.'"* The four circuit court judges were David
Todd, Rufus Pettibone, Nathaniel Beverly Tucker and Richard
S. Thomas. All were good lawyers, the first three being grad
uates of colleges. Thomas had been a delegate to the con
stitutional convention and only the anti-slavery attitude had
prevented Pettibone from election to that body.'"" The per
sonnel of both the executive and judicial departments of the
State government was high. Much of the stability that is
apparent in the early history of the State was doubtless due to
the character and ability of such public officers as Bates, Barton,
Cook, Jones, McGirk, and other eminent lawyers of that day.
One of the important political acts of the general assembly
at this session was the election of the first presidential electors
from Missouri. This took place at 3 P. M., on November 2.
The election was made by a joint vote of both houses. "Those
members of the Legislature whose names were before the public
as candidates for electors, declined standing a poll, the better
opinion prevailing that a member of the Legislature could not
consistently with the Constitution of this state hold the office

"' The constitution had a minimum age qualiflcation for judges of thirty
years, and a maximum one of sixty-flve years.
'"Senate Journal, 1820, p. 141.
'" Bay, pp. 536. He came to Missouri about 1814 or 1816. After his ap
pointment to the bench he moved to Montgomery county and married into the
Tabbott family.
'«' Houck. His. Mo., III. 267.
'"Bay, pp. 389fl., 98f., 251; Houck, Hist Mo., Ill, 9ff.

288 Missouri Struggle for .Statehood.
of elector, and that the acceptance of the latter office would
vacate the former." "" The three electors chosen were Major
William Christy, of St. Louis county, John S. Brickey, of Cooper,
and William Shannon, of Ste. Genevieve. All three pledged
themselves to vote for James Monroe as president and Daniel
D. Tomkins for vice president of the United States."'
The legislative activity of the first general assembly at this
session was considerable despite the controversies waged over
the important elections and appointments made by the general
assembly and by the governor and senate and despite the long
drawn out struggles over the location of the temporary seat of
government and the proposing of constitutional amendments.
Fifty-one laws were enacted, the majority being necessary for
perfecting the organization of the State government. The
duties of the various state and local administrative officials
were determined; the judiciary was defined and regulated as
regards jurisdiction and the time and place of holding court;
provision was made for taking the census; and the militia was
given an organization. Some private bills for incorporating
academies and for the relief of individuals were also passed.
Excepting the state organization laws and the revenue measures,
the most important laws passed related to the establishing of
new counties, the selecting of six of the twelve Salt Springs
donated by the National Government, the appointing of a
commission to report on a site for the permanent seat of gov
ernment, and the preventing of waste on the public school
lands. Ten new counties were established at this session —
Boone, Callaway, Chariton, Cole, Gasconade, Perry, Ray,
Saline, Lillard and Ralls. Five lay north of the Missouri River,
five south. Eight of these, however, were formed from either
the Salt River or the Boone's Lick country and these greatly
increased the power of the frontier in the legislature. The
commission appointed to report on the location of the permanent
seat of government was composed of John Thornton, of Howard
county, Robert Guy Watson, of New Madrid, John B. White,
of Pike, James Logan, of Wayne, and Jesse B. Boone, of Mont-

¦" St. Louis Enquirer, Nov. 4, 1820; Senate Journal, 1820, p. 89.
" Ibid.

A De Facto State. 289
gomery."^ Only two of the five commissioners were legislators,
Logan being a senator and Boone a representative. A resolu
tion was offered in the house by Geyer, of St. Louis, for the
committee on finances to inquire into the expediency of author
izing a loan of $1,000,000 on the State's credit, redeemable in
twenty years, for establishing a State bank.'" Nothing came
of this attempt to establish a State bank and seventeen years
passed before such an institution was chartered in Missouri.
Attempt was also made to select the designs for the Great Seal
of the State. The house wanted as part of the emblem "a
cock close around, resting on a sheaf of wheat;" the senate
struck out "cock" and inserted "an eagle." "* It was not,
however, until 1822 that a law was passed describing the Great
Seal. Besides enacting laws the general assembly seems to have
passed several resolutions and memorials. The volume of ses
sion acts of this session does not incorporate any of these. A
resolution was introduced and was probably passed for cor
recting the errors found in the printed draft of the constitution;
and another providing that an exchange of the laws of the State
be made with New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia.'"
Several memorials to Congress were also introduced and appear
to have passed. These were on the questions of pre-emption
rights, an extension of credit for paying for public lands, and on
the subject of laying additional duties on foreign lead and iron.
A protective tariff on these minerals that were produced so
extensively in Missouri was desired by a large part of the
population even in 1820. No record has been found of these
memorials having been presented to Congress in 1820 and
1821."* Finally after a session of eighty-six days, seventy-
four being devoted to legislation, the first session of the general
assembly adjourned on December 12, 1820."'
"• Mo. Laws, 1820, pp. ISf.
¦" Mo. Intell, Nov. 1. 1820.
"< Senate Journal, 1820, pp. 145f.
¦" Senate Journal, 1820, pp. 29, 40.
"'St. Louis Enquirer, Sept. 30, 1820; Senate Journal 1820, pp. 84; Mo. Gaz.,
Oct. 11, 25, Nov. 1, 1820.
"' Mo. Intell, Jan. 1, 1821. The IntelUgencer says after a session of eighty-
four days.
M S — 19

CHAPTER X.
SECOND MISSOURI COMPROMISE.
The framing of the Missouri constitution of 1820, the
election of state and local officials, and the organization of a
state government, did not, as had been expected, either actually
or virtually settle Missouri's struggle for statehood. That
Missouri had a state government in nearly full working, that
Missourian^ regarded Missouri as a state, and that a large part
of the Nation shared this view, did not deter northern states
men and their constituents from making plans to delay, if not
defeat, Missouri's admission. These plans were publicly ex
pressed in the eastern newspapers and were copied by the Mis
souri press as early as in September, 1820.'
It was, therefore, not surprising that Barton, Benton and
Scott were not permitted to take their seats in Congress when
they arrived in Washington, November 16, 1820.^ The ap
ponents of the State maintained that until the 1820 constitu
tion was accepted, Missouri's senators and representative in
Congress were suspended. This viewpoint was maintained
and enforced during the 1820-1821 session of Congress.'
Scott would have been allowed a seat in the House if he
had acted as a delegate but such an act would have impliedly
confessed that Missouri was still a territory. This important
point was concisely stated by Scott in a letter to C. S. Hemp
stead, dated Washington City, December 31, 1820:
"None of us have our seats. I will not act as Delegate; because I take the
ground that we are a STATE — and so do all our friends — and were I to act as
Delegate, it might be construed into an acknowldgement that we are still a ter
ritory. The consequence is, that the business of Missouri, land claims and aU,
stand still, till we are disposed of in our state pretensions." •
These "state pretensions" were brought before the at
tention of the second session of the sixteenth Congress shortly
' Cf., St. Louis Enq., Sept.-Dec. 1820.
' Mo. Intell, Dec. 18. 1820, Jan. 1. 1821.
' Cf., letter of Col. John WilUams, U. S. Senator from Tennessee, dated,
Washington, Jan. 7. 1821. (T. A. Smith Mss.)
' St Louis Enq., Jan. 27, 1821. (290)

Second Missouri Compromise. 291
after the convening of the two houses. A copy of the Missouri
constitution was laid before the Senate on November 14th—
the second day of the session: and another copy was laid before
the House by Mr. Scott on the 16th inst. Both bodies at once
referred these documents to committees.'
The Senate was known to be favorably inclined towards
admitting Missouri, but the House was regarded as being
strongly opposed to this. The Senate committee to which had
been referred the Missouri constitution reported favorably on
November 29th and presented a resolution declaring the ad
mission of the new State.* The opponents of admission and of
the resolution at once attacked that clause in Missouri's con
stitution which made it commandatory on the general assembly
of the State to pass laws "to prevent free negroes and mulattoes
from coming to, and settling in, this state, under any pretext
whatsoever." To conciliate these opponents in the Senate the
following proviso to the statehood resolution was offered by
Mr. Eaton of Tennessee:
"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 in the Constitution of the United
States, which declares that 'the citizens of each State shall be entitled to aU
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.' " '
This proviso was defeated by a vote of twenty-one to twenty-
four, and for the next four days the Missouri Question was
long debated in the Senate. The resolution of admission having
been finally amended by the Eaton proviso, was adopted by a
vote of twenty-six to eighteen on December 11th, and was
sent to the House, where after being read once it was ordered
to lie on the table.*
During this time the House had been considering the
Missouri Question independently. The House committee, of
which Mr. Lowndes was chairman, and to which had been
referred the Missouri constitution, presented a report on No
vember 23rd advising the admission of Missouri. This report
made mention of the objectionable free negro clause in the

• Annals of Cong., pp. 10, 440.
'IMd., p. 26f.; 31ff.
' Ibid., p. 41.
'IMd., pp. 45, 116, 641f.

292 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
twenty-sixth section of article three of the Missouri constitution
but said that such a provision existed in the laws of at least
one state, Delaware, and that discrimination was made every
where between whites and blacks regarding voting and jury
service. It further advised that such questions as these were
judicial questions and not legislative ones." This report was
accompanied by a resolution of admittance which after being
read the second time was referred to the committee of the
whole. The Lowndes resolution was debated in the committee
of the whole and before the House from December 6th to the
13th and was finally rejected for engrossment by a vote of
seventy-nine to ninety-three.'" The first phase of the struggle
leading up to the second Missouri Compromise had ended.
The northern majority in the House had not only succeeded in
preventing the admission of Missouri during 1820, but had
put a doubt in the hearts of Missouri's supporters that the
State would not be admitted even during that Congress.
When Missouri received news of the new Missouri struggle
in Congress and of the defeat of the Lowndes resolution in the
House, the press and the people of the State took a firm but
pessimistic attitude. The expressions of public opinion were
strangely neither boastful nor defiant. Never did Missouri
more calmly and determinedly analyze a condition critical to
herself and to the Nation than at this time. Never was a people
more united, more of one thought in their convictions, than
were Missourians during the winter of 1820-1821. They re
garded Missouri as a state, and, whether or not Congress passed
an act of admission, were determined that she would never
again become a territory unless force was used. They thought
that Missouri had acted legally when a state constitution was
formed and adopted and a state government was established.
They saw nothing in Missouri's constitution that was contrary
to the United States constitution, but, they said, if by chance
there were an illegal provision in it then the interpretation of
this was a judicial and not a legislative function. They were
convinced that the northern members of Congress were trying
'Am. Slate Papers, Misc., II. 625.
¦• Ibid., p. 670.

Second Missouri Compromise. 293
to embarrass Missouri, increase the extent of free soil, and im
pose their will on the slave states.'"*
While the Missouri press was full of editorials expressing
these views, only one utterance is preserved today that issued
from a judicial body. The St. Louis county circuit court on
December 18, 1820, resolved that "The state government was
not only theoretically formed, but in full and constitutional opera
tion, as regarded the constitution of the United States and that
of the State of Missouri." "
Such convictions were not based merely on hasty _and
natural inclination but were founded on full information of the
debates in Congress and were in accord with the many public
letters of Barton and Benton, which appeared in Missouri
newspapers. Benton wrote to the editor of the Missouri
Intelligencer on November 22nd, that the northern restriction
ists in the House would oppose Missouri on the pretext of the
free negro and mulatto clause "when almost every state in the
Union, even the free states themselves, have the same pro
vision, as will be freely shown in the course of the debates
here." '^ And on the same date Benton wrote to the Enquirer
in part as follows:
"Barton. Scott, and myself have searched the laws of the diflerent states,
and found provisions on this subject [the free negro and mulatto clause] which
will make a fine contrast with the speeches of some of the northern members." "
On December 19th, Benton again wrote the Intelligencer and
stated that "all the friends of Missouri here consider her to be
a State in point of fact and in point of right; and expect her to
go on calmly and firmly with the operations of her government,
preserving all the points of relationship with the government of
the United States which her anomalous position will permit
of." '* On December 3rd, Barton wrote the St. Louis Enquirer
that New York was leading the restrictionists and that "most
of the northern and northwestern members chime in; and if
"^ St. Charles Mo., Jan. 13, 1821; St Louis Enq., Dec. 23, 1820, Jan. 20,
27, 1821; (St Louis) Mo. Gaz., Dec. 20, 27, 1820; Jan. 10, Feb. 7, 1821.
" Niles Beg., Feb. 3, 1821.
" Mo. Intell, Jan. 1. 1821.
" St. Louis Enq., Dec. 23. 1820.
" Mo. Intell, Jan. 29, 1821. Cf., Sl Louis Enq., Jan. 21, 1821.

294 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
I am not misinformed, some of the cabinet aid and abet the
enemies of our rights — We should (not) be surprised after four
years to see our next President riding into the City of Wash
ington, not on a white horse, or on an ass's colt, but on a free
negro or mulatto .... but if we should be rejected, I hope
Missouri has spirit and energy enough to adhere to her con
stitution in respect to the disputed point, and if it must
go down, to go down with it." "
Having the backing of the Senate and of nearly half of
the House, endorsed by the Executive and supposedly by the
judiciary, convinced of the justice of their cause and of the
injustice attempted to be hoisted on them, and guided by their
public men and statesmen, Missouri had no hesitancy in taking
a firm stand for her state constitution and her state government.
To have acted otherwise would either have branded her inhabit
ants as cowards or have revealed a strong anti-slavery or
restrictionist feeling in the State. If Congress had not finally
passed an act of admission the situation in Missouri might have
become critical.'*
The Christmas holidays of 1820 had barely ended when the
Missouri Question was again before the House. This time the
subject was considered in a new form: Was Missouri a state
or a territory? And what was the condition of the Federal
judiciary in Missouri? Three memorials from the legislature
of Missouri had been presented to the House. The debate
there turned on the point as to whether the Journal of the
House should record these memorials as coming from the State
or the Territory of Missouri. The first two weeks in January
were spent in debating these points and it was decided to enter
the memorials as being simply from Missouri."
The Senate resolution of admission was read the second
time on January 15th in the House and was then referred to the
committee of the whole. While this resolution was up for
discussion another resolution was introduced by Mr. Eustis
"St Louis Enq., Dec. 30, 1820; Mo. Intell, Jan. 15, 1821. Cf., letter from
"One of Missouri's Senators to Congress" (probably Barton), in Mo. Intell Jan
29, 1821. >• Cf.. Jefferson's Writings, X. 175fl, letter to Gallatin, dated Dec. 26, 1820
"Annals, pp. 73-863.

Second Missouri Compromise. 295
admitting Missouri on a certain (?) day provided the free negro
and mulatto clause had been expunged from the Missouri con
stitution on or before that day. This last resolution was de
feated for engrossment by a vote of six to one hundred and
forty-six.'* One effort having been made and lost to strike
out the proviso in the Senate's resolution, the following proviso
to that resolution was introduced by Mr. Foot:
"Provided, That it shall be taken as a fundamental condition, upon which
the said State is incorporated in the Union, that so much of the 26th section of
the 3rd article of the constitution which has been submitted to Congress, as de
clares it shaU be the duty of the General Assembly 'to prevent free negroes and
mulattoes from coining to, or settling in, this State, under any pretext what
soever, shall be expunged, within two years from the passage of this resolution,
by the General Assembly of Missouri, in the manner prescribed for amending said
constitution." "
Mr. Storrs moved an amendment to Mr. Foot's proviso, which
was, to strike out all of the latter after the word "Union" and
in lieu thereof insert the following:
"And to be of perpetual obligation on the said State, (in faith whereof this
resolution is passed by Congress,) that no law shall ever be enacted by the said
State impairing or contravening the rights, privileges, or immunities, secured to
citizens of the United States: And provided, further, That the Legislature acting
under the constitution already adopted in Missouri as a State, shall as a conven
tion, (for which purpose the consent of Congress is hereby granted,) declare their
assent by a public act to the said condition before the next session of Congress,
and transmit to Congress an attested copy of such act, by the flrst day of the
said session." "
This resolution of Mr. Storrs' was lost by a vote of eighty to
sixty-one and a similar one offered by M. Hackley was lost by
a vote of seventy to sixty-six. Mr. Cobb then moved to strike
out all of Mr. Foot's amendment after the word "Union" and
insert the following:
"That the Legislature of the State of Missouri shall pass no law Impairing
the privileges and immunities secured to the citizens of each State, under the flrst
clause of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United
States." This amendment was lost by a vote of seventy-four to sixty-
five and Mr. Foot's was also lost.^' A number of amendments
was then proposed similar to either the Foot, Storrs, Cobb, or
Senate proviso, and all were defeated. Mr. Clay seeing that all

" Ibid., pp. 942fl.
" IMd., pp. 983ff.
" Ibid., p. 990.
•¦ Ibid., p. 1002.

296 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
effort at amendment had failed, and desirous of settling the
question, moved to refer the Senate's resolution to a committee
of thirteen members. This motion was agreed to and the
thirteen members were appointed — eight of whom were from
free states and the chairman of which was Clay.^^
This committee reported a resolution of admission to the
House on February 10th, which was similar to the one finally
adopted. The two points of difference were that this original
Clay resolution did not refer to the free negro and mulatto pro
vision by clause, section and article, but simply stated that
Missouri should not pass laws preventing any description of
persons from coming to and settling in Missouri, who were
citizens of other States; and that it contained a proviso, later
cut out, which stated that nothing in this resolution was to
impair the exercise by Missouri of any right constitutionally
exercised by the original States.^' After lengthy debate the
Clay select committee's report was reported on unfavorably
by the committee of the whole. ^* The House by the close vote
of eighty-six to eighty-three refused to concur with this report
and then, equally strangely, by a vote of eighty to eighty-three,
refused to advance the Senate's resolution as thus amended to
a third reading.^' After voting by one hundred and one to
sixty to reconsider this last vote, the House again voted down
the Senate's amended resolution by eighty-two to eighty-eight.^*
This definitely sealed the fate of the Senate's resolution
in the House. It seemed that the northern representatives
were to triumph and Missouri's admission would be delayed
until a new Congress convened. A number of compromises
had been proposed in the House and all had been defeated.
The determination of the slavery restrictionists and of others
to defeat Missouri had succeeded and that State's future was
even darker than it had been in December. In Missouri, how
ever, the attitude of the people was one of determined con
fidence in the continuance of their State government. Bitter
"Ibid., p. 1027.
"IMd., p. 1080.
"Ibid., p. 1114.
"Ibid., p. 1116.
"IMd., pp. 1120, 1146.

Second Missouri Compromise. 297
resentment was also felt that Congress would attempt to act
so perfidiously. The editor of the St. Louis Enquirer wrote:
"And the pretext for this (opposition) is that the rights of a
few vagabond negroes may possibly be infringed ! . . . . The
rejection of Missouri, not the admission, is the object to be
accomplished, and the clause respecting free negroes suffices
for the purpose .... At all events, let us by a mild, tem
perate, but firm demeanor, shew that we are satisfied with the
justice of our cause." ^'
The determined confidence of Missouri in her state govern
ment was forcibly set forth in an editorial that appeared in the
St. Louis Enquirer of March 10, 1821. These extracts illustrate
the tone of that editorial : "It is a remarkable fact, not generally
known abroad perhaps, that the monumental Missouri question ,
nowhere in the United States, is looked upon so calmly and
dispassionately as in Missouri .... Our state government is
in full and complete operation .... The territorial govern
ment is almost forgotten . . It is (a) matter of fact that
we are a state. We both see and feel its operations . . .It
is very manifest, therefore, that such change (back to a ter
ritory) can never take place .... We could not, for instance
by an act of ours, get back the territorial governor and judges,
and the senate of the United States, entertaining their present
opinion, would of course not reappoint them . . . When
the question of restriction was first agitated in congress, it
excited much feeling and alarm in the then territory [of Mis
souri] .... Thoroughly understanding their rights, the People
of Missouri yet waited with a most forbearing patience ....
Bounds were, however, set to forbearance, and preparations
had commenced for calling a Convention without the consent
of Congress. That consent having been given .... Mis
souri proceeded with her characteristic moderation, order and
firmness, to form a constitution of government .... In the
organization of the new government, so far from manifesting
any disposition ever to retrace her steps, the barely possible
event (for such it was deemed) of our constitution being re
jected, was anticipated and provided against. Care was taken

"Feb. 17, 1821.

298 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
to appoint no man to office, whose opinion was not known to be
in favor of the unqualified sovereignty of the state. An explicit
assurance to that effect was required of the judges — and it may
safely be affirmed that in no township of the state could any man
avowing a different opinion, have obtained the appointment of
constable. The present prevailing calmness of the public
mind . , must not be misunderstood as the effect of doubt
as to our rights, intimidation at opposition or indifference as to
the result. It is the calmness of fixed determination. We
know we are an independent state, and are resolved to remain
SQ . The People of Missouri have also become disgusted
with the proceedings of the present session of Congress, and
think it trifling to dispute with men, who set all candor and
fair reasoning at defiance." ^* The tone of this editorial was
representative of what appeared in other Missouri newspapers.
The people of Missouri were actually less concerned over their
admission than were the members of Congress. Missouri had
a state constitution and a state government, and unless the
complexion of the United States Senate changed there seemed
little reason for thinking the State would revert to a territory.
Missourians also took pride in their determined and secure
attitude towards the north. There is little doubt that the
peculiar position occupied by Missouri in 1820 and 1821 did
much to knit closely the early pioneers of those days. Intense
state pride in Missouri during those years almost reached the
heights of patriotism. It speaks well for the broadminded-
ness and loyalty of Missourians that in 1861-65 they enlisted
over 100,000 strong in the army of a Nation that forty years
before had so perfidiously played low politics in refusing them
admission into the Union.
The perfidiousness of Congress in seizing upon the free
negro clause in Missouri's constitution was commented on by
Barton in a letter dated February 11, 1821, to the Missouri
Intelligencer and to the St. Louis Enquirer. '^^ He wrote in part :
'• Cf., also Mo. Gaz., Jan. 10, Feb. 7, 1821; St Charles Mo., March 24, 1821-
Mo. Intell, Feb. 19. March 19, 26, 1821.
" Mo. Intell, April 16, 1821; St Louis Enq., March 24. 1821.

Second Missouri Compromise. 299
"You have observed, that the free negro clause in our constitution is made
their pretext of opposition, though I presuine no honest, intelligent man believes
this to be their true reason, or would believe so, if they had not unveiled themselves
These free negro apostles indulge the delusive hope that a revolution of
sentiment can be effected in Missouri. They are led to this belief . . . that
large minorities in favor of restriction exist in each county! [i. e., in Missouri.]
Encouraged by such hopes, and being wholly free from the embarassments of
poUtical honesty and public faith, the leaders in the House of Representatives
are endeavoring to secure to themselves the benefits of an open question, and
a new struggle in the succeeding Congress. It is not believed, however, that
the honest repubhcans of the north, thus advised of their [the restrictionists]
ultimate objects, will go with them through their criminal course."
The defeat of the amended Senate resolution admitting
Missouri did not delay the continued discussion of the Mis
souri Question. This question was, however, presented in a
new form on February 14th and for that day surpassed in
nation-wide interest even the counting of the presidential elec
toral votes. Missouri had in conformity with both state and
national law cast her votes for President and Vice President
and had three electoral votes to be counted by Congress. The
question arose whether these three votes could be officially
counted since Missouri had not been admitted. Clay reported
a compromise resolution whereby the results of the election
were to be stated in two ways — one by including Missouri's
votes, and one by omitting these votes. Clay explained the
policy of this by stating that since there was opposition to
recognizing Missouri as a state and since the votes of Missouri
would not effect the results of the elections, he thought it wise
to avoid dispute and to adopt the resolution. The discussion
following this report was remarkable for its violence. However,
the resolution was adopted by a vote of ninety-five to fifty.'"
This left the question of admitting Missouri an open one before
both houses.
The Senate was the first to take action. A resolution of
admission was introduced by Mr. Roberts, which contained
the proviso that the fourth clause of the twenty-sixth section
of the third article of Missouri's constitution should be modified
as soon as the provisions of that constitution would admit,
so that this clause would not be applicable to any persons who
were citizens of the United States and that until this clause

"Annals, pp. 1147-1166.

300 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
was so modified no law should be passed in conformity with its
import." After several amendments had been proposed, this
resolution was rejected by a vote of nineteen to twenty-four
on February 21st.'^
On the same day that the Senate rejected the Roberts'
resolution, the House again took the Missouri Question under
consideration. On the following day Clay proposed that a
House committee of twenty-three members be appointed to
act jointly with a Senate committee, which joint committee
was to consider the question of Missouri's admission and of Mis
souri's present condition." Clay's proposal was adopted and the
House committee was selected — Clay being chairman. The Senate
concurred in the proposition on the 24th inst., and appointed
seven of its members to act with the House committee.'* The
joint committee reported on the 26th and this report, known
as the Second Missouri Compromise, was adopted without
change by the House on that day, by the Senate on the 28th
inst., and was approved by the President on March 2nd." The
full text of this compromise report, of which Clay was the
author, was as follows:
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled. That Missouri shall be admitted into this
Union on an equal footing -srith the original States in all respects whatever, upon
the fundamental condition, that the fourth clause of the twenty-sixth section of
the third article of the constitution submitted on the part of said State to Congress
shall never be construed to authorize the passage of any law, and that no law
shall be passed in confornuty thereto, by which any citizen of either of the States
in this Union shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and
immunities to which such citizen is entitled under the Constitution of the United
States: Provided, That the Legislature of the said State, by a solemn pubUc act,
shall declare the assent of the said State to the said fundamental condition, and
shall transmit to the President of the United States, on or before the fourth
Monday in November next, an authentic copy of the said act; upon the receipt
whereof the President, by proclamation, shaU announce the fact: whereupon,
and without any further proceeding on the part of Congress, the admission of the
said state into this Union, shall be considered as complete.**
Writing of this compromise to the editors of the Missouri
Intelligencer and the St. Louis Enquirer, Barton said:

•¦ Annals, p. 351fl.
" Ibid., p. 364.
"IMd., p. 1219.
" IMd., p. 382.
" Ibid., pp. 383, 388fl; pp. 1236fl.
"Stat, at Large, 2nd Sess. 16 Cong., Ill, 645; Annals, p. 1228.

Second Missouri Compromise. 301
"This promise in writing obUgatory required of our General Assembly is
precisely tantamount to their official oaths to support the Constitution of the
United States, which they have taken in obedience to our state Constitution
What power Congress has to dictate any condition, however nugatory
and unmeaning, our State must decide for itself. I beUeve, however, no better
terms could be got from the north; and if they do abandon their free negro crusade,
they at the same time dictate to, and humlUate Missouri; which, after losing
their removed restriction, is some satisfaction to them." "

'-I Mo. Intell, April 16, 1821 (letter dated Feb. 27, 1821); .S(. Louis Enq.,
March 31, 1821.

CHAPTER XL
STATEHOOD IN THE UNION.
The news of the passage of the resolution providing for
the admission of Missouri was received by Missourians with
joy. This joy was, however, founded mainly not on the pleasant
anticipation of final statehood in the Union within a few months
or on a relief from suspense regarding what might have been
Missouri's fate, but was founded on the defeat of the eastern
slavery restrictionists. Missouri took more delight in seeing
her eastern enemies defeated than in the good she obtained
from her victory. The latter was appreciated but the former
was uppermost in the minds of Missourians. The editor of
the St. Louis Enquirer on May 26th made the following com
ment in this connection:
"The news of the admission of the State was received in this place -with
evident manifestations of pleasure — it beamed in the countenances of aU, and was
a subject of mutual congratulation — But there were no 'boastings,' or'bonflres;'
the people here knew too well what was due to propriety and their own dignity —
It was for the second triumph of the Union and Missouri, that they felt rejoiced."
These people had for years been heckled, opposed, and in
sulted by eastern Congressmen and eastern newspapers, until
mere victory over the restrictionists was more desired than the
fruits of victory. A most concrete illustration of this almost
revengeful attitude was a public dinner given on April 10th in
Franklin, Missouri.
This dinner was "in celebration of our late triumph over
eastern policy and eastern artifice. We enjoy the right of self-
government, and will be admitted into the Union on a condition
perfectly nugatory and foolish." ' A large number of toasts
were given of which the following were representative:
"The 27th day of February — Missouri wiU hall it as the day of her deUverance
from artful and ambitious politicians."
"The Senate of the United States — Our buckler in the late confiict."
"The House of Representatives — A majority virtuous."

1 Mo. Intell, April 16, 1821.

(302)

Statehood in the Union. 303
"The Constitution of the United States — The meaning cannot be perverted
to answer the purpose of eastern politicians, or make free negroes citizens of
Missouri." "The Constitution of Missouri — Formed by men understanding their powers.
it confiicts with no superior instrument, and wiU forever defy Eastern acuteness."
Accompanying this spirit of jubilance over the defeat of
the east was a feeling of contempt and hatred of the restriction
ists in Congress. This found expression in newspaper articles
and in public speeches. One of the most striking of these was
a poem which appeared in the editorial column of the St. Charles
Missourian of May Oth. The following stanzas were selected
from this piece:
"A Song for the Special Use of Certain Members of Congress.
Time — "Paddy's Wedding."
How shrewd are we. who plainly see,
And if we don't we "guess" it O,
The way to shine and pockets Une,
And aU men will confess it O ;
A negro slave we scorned to have.
So sold them for the doUars O ;
Nutmegs of wood are just as good
If — no detection foUows O.
Tid re i, &c.
Then let's join in the dance, we'U caper
& prance
With Luce and with Judy quite cheerly O,
The African fair though dusklsh they are
We cannot but cherish sincerely O.
Our citizens rights exertion invites
We'll "aid and assist and abet them" O.
Then buzza for the scheme! their rights
we'll redeem
Or go to the devil to get them O
Tid re i, &c. COMUS."
There is evidence to believe that the slavery restriction
ists in Missouri aided the eastern and northern members of
Congress. At least this report appeared in the National In
telligencer of March 10th and in the St. Louis Enquirer of April
4th. The former contained the following article:
"We believe, indeed, that such as opposed the admission of Missouri, in order
to compel her, by refusing to admit her on any other terms, to introduce into her
constitution a clause inhibiting slavery, labored under the disadvantage of in
correct information, and of a misapprehension ol the effect of the course which they
proposed. The private letters from Missouri ought not so much to have been
reUed on as the unanimous declaration of her authorized agents."

304 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
And this caused the following comment in the Enquirer:
"For sixteen years a system of secret communication has been carried on
from this place to the seat ot the general government. It has attacked the char
acters of individuals, the rights of property, and the best interests of the country.
Nothing -virtuous, honorable, just, or advantageous to the country could escape
it, and every department of the general government was made a reservoir of Ues
and poison. — Finally, this indefatigable agent of mischief has attacked the sov
ereignty of the state of Missouri, and has undertaken to array a majority of con
gress against her rights by imposing on the members from the non-slaveholding
states the most unparalleled falsehoods. Secret communications have been made
to effect this object, stating that the Restrictionists were getting into power in
Missouri, and that the majority of the people were now in their favor. Various
information has given intelhgence of their infernal work, and there rests not a
doubt but that Missouri is largely indebted to it for all the humiUation to which
she has been subjected this winter. A MISSOURIAN."
To Missourians the hero of the second Missouri Com
promise and of Missouri's triumph over the eastern restric
tionists was Henry Clay. To him they justly gave the credit
of obtaining the passage of the admission act. His name and
deeds were toasted and lauded in speech and verse throughout
the State. Closely related to the joy of Missourians in their triumph
over the East was their appreciation of the emptiness of the
fundamental solemn-public-act condition contained in the
Missouri resolution of Congress. As one Missouri writer
succinctly expressed himself: "the result of the act of Congress
appears to be absurd in the extreme. Our legislature is called
upon to annihilate a particular clause in our constitution, or
pass a law that will be tantamount to such annihilation ....
They [Congress] require the legislature to do that which, under
the constitution, they have not the right to exercise." ^ The
same writer continued: "the legislature may enact a law de
claring no law passed in conformity to the clause aforesaid [the
free negro and mulatto clause] in the state constitution shall
be binding; but .... It would be a mere legislative act, sub
ject to be repealed by the next succeeding legislature .... [after
the President has admitted Missouri] The State will then be a
member of the Union— the legislature of the succeeding session
may repeal the law so enacted under the requisition of Congress,
and we may be precisely in the same situation as it we had been
> Mo. Gaz., April 4, 1821, article by "Phllo."

Statehood in the Union. 305
admitted without so much ceremony .... Upon the whole,
I conclude, that the friends of Missouri, have triumphed over
their opponents — and they must have seen and known the full
bearing of the law that was passed, and knew that we should
be admitted without, in fact, any restriction, though seemingly
otherwise." ' The editor of the St. Louis Enquirer commented
in a similar strain on the emptiness of the solemn-public-act
condition: "Now if there be anything in the constitution of
Missouri incompatible with the rights of citizens in other states,
how can the legislature expunge the inconsistency, or sit in
judgment on its constitutionality? .... The leaders of the
north will now leave Washington with the same feelings which
the disappointed ambassadors of the Hartford Convention
experienced some five or six years ago." *
The inhabitants of Missouri were not only pleased with
their triumph over the East and with the ridiculousness of the
solemn-public-act condition, but above all they took pride in
their having maintained a consistent position of independent
statehood since the adoption of the Missouri constitution of
1820 and the organization of the State government in that year.
This position had been repeatedly attacked in Congress but
was never given up by Missouri and her representatives. Public
opinion in Missouri was unanimous on the point that Missouri
was a state, had a state constitution and state government,
could not become a territory unless force was used, and that
whether admitted or not by Congress she would continue to
exercise all the functions of a state except those national duties
and privileges that centered in Washington. Not once during
the winter of 1820-21 were these principles compromised on the
part of Missouri and care was taken that no act of her repre
sentatives could be interpreted even by implication as derogatory
to these principles. That this attitude finally was impliedly
endorsed by Congress was a source of much satisfaction to
Missourians.

• IMd., April 18, 1821; cf.. Ibid,, March 28, 1821, an editorial.
< March 24, 1821. See also editorial in St. Charles Missourian, Apr. 11, 1821.

M S— 20

306 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
The editor of the St. Louis Enquirer on April 28, 1821,
summarized conditions relating to these contentions as fol
lows: "The flrst thing that strikes us in the resolution is, that it now admits
by fair, direct and necessary implication, that Missouri is a sovereign and in
dependent state. It admits this by treating with the legislature of the state,
as now organized under the state constitution, and admitting its authority to
enter into a compact with the general government as fuUy as any other state
could do.
The act to be done by Missouri has nothing in it derogatory to her state
sovereignty. She is not required to repeal, expunge, or alter any part of her
constitution. She is only requested so to construe her present constitution as
not to impair the rights of any citizen of any one of the states. . .
The deferred admission is unpleasant to our feeUngs; but really, we see no
practical inconvenience resulting from it. The state authorities are in full opera
tion; all their acts are valid; We say that there can be no doubt about
the validity of all the acts of the State authorities; and our position is maintained
by principle, and by practice, and by the admission of Congress. —
1. By principle: because Missouri having had the consent of Congress to
become a state government at a certain time and place, and having framed it
In the way consented to, became, by that act, a sovereign state, and needs no
second consent of congress upon the same point. —
2. By practice: because almost every new state which has been admitted
into the Union, put their state authorities, executive, legislative and judicial,
into operation before the last form of admission was gone through; all the acts
done by them in such intervals have been held vaUd — and if valid for an interval
of one or two months, they are equally so for as many, or any number of years.
3. By the admission of Congress: because in the very resolution, now under
examination, the sovereign, independent, and federal character of Missouri is
recognized by the fact of treating with her in those characters.
We perceive some error, as we believe, in the understanding of some of our
citizens about this resolution; they speak of it as the act of our enemies, as a
thing imposed upon us by the enemies of Missouri. Such is not the fact. The
resolution was not the work of the enemies of Missouri; they opposed it, and would
rejoice to see it opposed here: but it is the work of the devoted friends of Mis
souri and of the Union, brought forward by the zeal and abihties of Henry Clay,
and supported in one house or the other by one or more members of every state
in the Union, except Ohio."
One of the most interesting side-lights on the struggle in
Congress leading up to the Second Missouri Compromise re
lated to the status of Missouri's senators and representatives
elected to Congress in 1820. This was also an important ques
tion to Missourians of that day. When Senators Barton and
Benton, of Missouri, arrived in Washington in November,
1820, they were either denied their seats in the Senate or policy
dictated their not demanding seats. Scott, however, whose
term as Territorial Delegate from Missouri had not expired if
Missouri was still a Territory and who had also been elected
in 1820 as Congressman from Missouri State, took his seat in

Statehood in the Union. 307
the House, presented the Missouri constitution to that body,
and made several motions. On having been asked in what
capacity he so acted, Scott replied "as a member from the state
of Missouri." ' Policy, however, dictated his withdrawal from
his seat. Sometime toward the end of the session, probably
after the passage of the Missouri resolution. Barton, Benton
and Scott, all took their seats in Congress as Senators and
Representatives from the State of Missouri.* Scott was at
tacked in Missouri for having acted as a delegate of the Terri
tory of Missouri. The editor of the St. Louis Enquirer replied
to this charge with warmth.'
Scott also replied on May 5th, in a letter dated "State of
Missouri, Ste. Genevieve, April 12, 1821:"
Sir: — .... I never did act as delegate, during the late session of congress.
I took my seat in no other capacity than as the representative from the slate of
Missouri. I had seen other members from new states aUowed that privilege,
before the admission of their state into the Union. I believed the repre
sentative from the state of Missouri entitled to the same pri-rilege, and unhes
itatingly took my seat, presented the constitution of the state, and On
being afterwards asked, by what right I made these motions, and in what capacity
I acted? I answered, as a member from the slate of Missouri. My right to act
in that capacity being then, for the flrst time, doubted by some, and not wishing
prematurely to bring up the question of our state rights, or embarrass our friends
. I instantly withdrew from my seat; The fact that I maintained the
ground that I was a member from the state, and not a delegate, is further proven
in this, that congress made a special appropriation for the payment of the sen
ators and representative from Missouri, which was quite unnecessary as to me,
if I had acted as delegate, which I had the right to do if I had chosen so far to
compromit the independence and rights of the state — for I had one session to
serve as delegate under my former election.
My having been entered on the journals of congress as the delegate from the
territory, was not my act, but the act of the officer, who seeing me in my place,
aud not having official knowledge of Missouri as a state, (the constitution not
having been then presented,) entered me do-wn as the delegate; — but in all the
calls from the chair . . for the delegate from Missouri, I never once
answered. It is true that I did present the constitution of the state of Missouri, and move
the reference of our land law; these were the only two acts I did in the house
during the session, and my reasons for so doing were these — first, I beUeved I
had the right so to do, as a member; and secondly, because I could not get those
things done by others. But I am conscious that no portion of my conduct has
ever authorized even an inference that I considered or represented Missouri as
a territory; nor could any act of mine bear a construction prejudicial to the state
pretensions or the state rights of Missouri. With much respect,
your obedient servant,
JOHN SCOTT."
'St. Louis Enq., May 5, 1821, letter of Scott dated April 12, 1821.
• St. Louis Enq., March 24, 1821. The Annals were sUent on this.
'April 28. 1821.

308 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Although Barton, Benton and Scott did not sit in this
session of Congress until toward the close, they received the
same pay for their past year's services that was allowed other
Congressmen. In the general appropriation bill for the sup
port of the government, approved March 3, 1821, special men
tion was made on this point as follows: "For the compensation
of the senators and representatives elected by Missouri, six
thousand dollars." * The other members of Congress were
provided for in a lump appropriation clause. Thus while Mis
souri was not officially regarded by Congress as a State, was not
admitted into the Union until August, 1821, and was not al
lowed representatives in Congress until March, 1821, still her
two senators and one representative drew salary from the
United States government through act of Congress for over a
year prior to August, 1821, i. e. practically from the passage
of the Enabling Act in 1820.
Although the Missouri admission act was received with
general favor in the State, no haste was advocated except in
St. Charles and St. Louis counties in complying with the solemn-
public-act condition." In these two counties, however, a demand
was made for an extra session of the general assembly and in
St. Charles county a petition was circulated by members of the
legislature requesting the governor to call such a session at an
early date. Rumors circulated that the question of a state
bank was back of this demand for immediate statehood in the
Union. An article appeared in the St. Charles Missourian over
the penname "A Constituent" opposing the calling of an extra
session in 1821, stating that there was no urgent need for such
a session, and declaring that the expense of one, which would
reach ten thousand dollars, could ill be borne at that time.'"
However, despite the absence of any general demand for an
extra session and the depleted condition of the State treasury,
Governor McNair issued the following proclamation:
' stat al Large, III. 628.
• Mo. Intell, May 7. 1821. editorial.
" Mo. Intell, May 21, 1821, from the St. Charles Mo.

Statehood in the Union. 309
"By The Govemor of The State of Missouri
A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas, great and weighty matters, claiming the consideration of the General
Assembly of the State of Missouri, form an extraordinary occasion for convening
them: I DO, by these presents, appoint, Monday the fourth day of June next,
for their meeting at the town of St. Charles, the temporary seat of govemment
for this state: Hereby requiring the respective Senators and Representatives
then and there to assemble in General Assembly, In order to receive such com
munications as shall then be made to them, and to consult and determine on such
measures as in their wisdom may be deemed meet for the welfare of the state.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto affixed my private seal, (there being
no seal of state yet provided,) Given under my hand at St. Charles, the twentieth
day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty-
one, and of the independence of the state of Missouri the flrst. A. M'Nair
By the Governor. Joshua Barton, Secretary of State." "
This proclamation met with a poor reception in the Boone's
Lick country. On the day the proclamation was printed in
the Missouri Intelligencer an editorial appeared in that paper
criticizing the calling of an extra session. The editor stated that
he was not informed what the "great and weighty matters"
were that necessitated such quick legislation; that the first
intimation and the actual receipt of the proclamation at Franklin,
had been almost simultaneous; that no petitions in Howard or
the surrounding counties had been circulated; and that as far
as he could learn, no demand had been made for such a session
except in St. Charles and St. Louis. Public meetings held in
western Missouri to consider this question sustained the general
attitude taken by the editor of the Intelligencer. A large
gathering of this kind, which met at Franklin, adopted the
following resolutions: first, that a special session was needed
but that it should have been called at a time so that it would
have merged with the regular fall session; second, that laws
interfering with the collection of debts, etc., were unreasonable;
third, that the establishment of a state bank then was opposed ;
fourth, that the general assembly should consider at the special
session only the admission act of Congress; and fifth, that these
resolutions be sent to the representatives of Howard and Cooper
counties and to the governor. In a comment either by the
reporter or editor it was stated that these resolutions "are the

¦1 Mo. Intell, May 7, 1821.

310 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
sentiments of nine tenths of the electors of counties west of
Cedar and the river Osage." '^ Notices of other meetings are
met with and although the people of Missouri appear to have
favored complying with the condition of Congress, there was a
widespread feeling that there was plenty of time to do this.
There was also a fear of the establishment of a state bank.
Combined with this was an unwillingness on the part of many
to burden the almost empty treasury with the expense of an
extra sitting of the legislature. Notwithstanding these out
spoken criticisms of the purpose of Governor McNair's proc
lamation, the prospect of early admission into the Union was
contemplated with much pleasure by the general body of
citizens." In pursuance of the proclamation the general assembly
convened at St. Charles on June 4th, and a long message was
delivered by Governor McNair.'* In speaking of the act of
Congress, he said: "I deem it proper to recommend the im
mediate consideration of that subject, and the passage of such
legislative act as is required by the resolution ; carefully avoiding
at the same time, everything that might impair our political
rights, or draw in question the dignity and independent char
acter of the state .... Our unsettled political condition has al
ready prevented thousands from making our country their home."
He called attention to the financial depression of the State
and recommended measures be considered to relieve it. He
stated that his position was well known on the question of
amendments to the constitution and urged action on this
subject at the special session. He also referred to the deficit
in the State's revenue and suggested that new revenue measures
be passed and that retrenchment in government expenses be
followed, and for this and other reasons that the session be
short.

" Mo. Intell, May 21, 1821. The meeting was held on May 19th.
¦• Mo. Intell, May 21. 28. 1821.
" Mo. Intell, June 18. 1821. Heury S. Geyer of St. Louis was elected speaker
on the resignation of Mr. CaldweU.

TEMPORARY CAPITOL OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI AT ST. CHARLICS.
In use from 1821 to 1826. Courtesy of Hon. Cornelius Rcicli. '

72834-310

Statehood in the Union. 311
The resolution of Congress was at once referred to a com
mittee of the whole House on the affairs of the State." Mr.
Ball submitted sundry resolutions expressive of the sense of
the Committee on the subject, and Messrs. Geyer, Heath and
Smith severally submitted bills for the same purpose. After
considerable debate Mr. Ball's resolutions were changed into
a report. On motion of Mr. Bates the several propositions
were referred to a select committee consisting of Bates, Ball,
Rutter, Waters of Ste. Genevieve, and Alcorn. This com
mittee reported the Ball report together with the bill submitted
by Geyer. The report was a long one containing over twenty-
two hundred words. In it were reviewed the history of the
objectionable clause in Missouri's constitution and of the
resolution of Congress. The report closed with a recommenda
tion to the general assembly to pass "A Solemn Public Act,"
which act as thus reported was practically identical with the
one finally adopted.'*
The preamble to this act and the act itself were debated
in the House, and opposition developed regarding both. Heath
and Smith with others attempted to strike out the preamble.
McGirk was opposed to acceding to the condition imposed by
Congress. The main supporters of the preamble and the bill
were Green, Ball, Alcorn, Young and Geyer. In the course of
the debate, Geyer "stated a fact not generally known— That
the clause mentioned in the Resolution of Congress is not the
one concerning free negroes and mulattoes. There are but
three principle clauses in the twenty-sixth section of the third
article, and the only clause distinguished as a fourth — is the
last subordinate branch of the second principal clause and
provides that the General Assembly shall have power, to permit
the owners of slaves to emancipate them saving the rights of
Creditors, where the persons so emancipating will give security
that the slave so emancipated will not become a public charge. —
But counting the clauses of the twenty-sixth section without
reference to the numbers thereto attached and the fourth

" Mo. Intell, June 18, 1821. We have been unable to obtain the joumal
of this session. Our information has been taken from the accoimts of proceed
ings published in the various newspapers of the State.
'• See Appendix IV.

312 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
clause, will be that which gives the General Assembly power
To prohibit the introduction of any slave for the purpose of
speculation, or as an article of trade or merchandise." The
bill and preamble were then agreed to by a large majority and
reported from the committee of the whole without amendment.'^
In this form it passed the House and was sent to the Senate.
In the latter chamber opposition developed regarding the
phraseology of the preamble and several clauses were stricken
out, which, however, were not acceded to by the representatives
in the lower chamber. A joint conference committee was then
appointed by the two houses to confer on the subject. This
committee succeeded in reaching an agreement. Their rec
ommended change in the original House bill was unimportant
and their report was accepted by both houses. The vote in
the House on accepting this report was forty to two, Heath and
McGirk opposing. The vote on the final passage of the bill
in the House was thirty-six to six. One of the nays, McGirk,
entered the following protest: "I do most solemnly protest
against any constitutional right which the Congress of the
United States had to pass their resolution, approved March
2, 1821, restricting the admission of this free, sovereign, and
independent state into the federal Union, and of requiring of
the State of Missouri, the condition in said restriction, con
tained as the price of her admission into the Union. Also
against any constitutional right which the Legislature of this
State had to pass their most Solemn Public Act, declaring the
assent of this State to the fundamental condition in the said
resolution of Congress. "'« The Solemn Public Act was ap
proved by Governor McNair on June 26, 1821.'" Missouri had
taken her last step, save one, toward admission into the Union.
Two interesting and important questions arise in considering
the resolution of Congress of March 2, 1821, and the solemn
public act of Missouri of June 28, 1821. First, how did Congress
>' Mo. Gaz., June 13. 1821; Jackson Indep. Patriot June 30. 1821.
¦ ¦ Prom aU the sources available, it has been impossible for us to determine
the flnal vote on this biU In the Senate.
>• Mo. session laws, special 1821, pp. 9-11; Mo. Intell, July 9, 1821, regarding
McGirk's protest; Jackson Indep. Patriot July 7, 1821, on the voting; St Louis
Eng., June 23, 30, on the disagreement of the two houses.

Statehood in the Union. 313
seemingly err in requiring the Missouri legislature to promise
never to enforce a certain clause in Missouri's constitution
when Congress objected to an entirely different clause: and how
did this apparent error remain undiscovered at that time and
seemingly was repeated by the Missouri general assembly?
Second, were the resolution and the public act binding on Mis
souri in law and practice? The former will be considered
first. The resolution of Congress of March 2, 1821, in effect
imposed on Missouri as the price of admission, a "fundamental
condition." This "fundamental condition" stated: "that the
fourth clause of the twenty-sixth section of the third article of
the constitution submitted on the part of said State to Con
gress, shall never be construed to authorize the passage of any
law, and that no law shall be passed in conformity thereto, by
which any citizen of the States in this Union, shall be excluded
from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immunities
to which such citizen is entitled under the constitution of the
United States." The resolution continued: "Provided, that
the Legislature of said State, by a solemn public act, shall
declare the assent of the said State to the said fundamental
condition" etc.
According to the constitution of Missouri as printed in the
Missouri revised statutes of 1825, 1835, 1845, 1855, and also as
first printed in St. Louis in 1820 by /. N. Henry and Company,
the fourth clause of the twenty-sixth section of the third article
was not the free negro and mulatto clause, which was the ob
jectionable clause to Congress. One writer was thus led to
comment on this seeming blindness or error of Congress as
follows: "And, curiously enough, the articles of the Constitu
tion [the Missouri constitution of 1820] enumerated in the act
of Congress and in the resolution of the Legislature cannot by
any human ingenuity be identified with the clauses excluding
free negroes." 2" Professor Viles was not, however, the first
to notice this apparent error. The Missouri historian and
editor, Lucien Carr, writing in 1900, stated that the fourth
clause of the twenty-sixth section of the third article was really

" Viles, The Story of the State, in The State of Missouri, p. 20.

314 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
the clause that empowered the legislature to permit owners of
slaves to emancipate them, and hence could not possibly bear
the construction put upon it." It remained for Professor Hodder
to examine in a scholarly and scientific manner this widely cir
culated story. He was not content with perusing the revised
statutes of Missouri but went to the Senate and House Documents
of the second session of the sixteenth Congress, 1820-1821.^^
In these documents, printed in Washington, D. C, he found
that the Missouri constitution of 1820 as therein set forth con
veniently lent itself to the construction placed upon it by
Congress. He found that the free negro and mulatto and
mulatto clause was the fourth indentation in the the margin of
section twenty-six of article three, while as later printed this free
negro clause was the first clause under the third subdivision of
section twenty-six of article three. ^'
Even more conclusive proof of the accuracy of the designa
tion of the free negro clause by Congress is found in the Missouri
constitution of 1820 as printed in Washington, 1820, by the
United States Government printers— Gales and Seaton. This
latter pamphlet, an original copy of which is now in The State
Historical Society of Missouri, was the one used by the members
of Congress during the 1820-1821 session. In it the free negro
clause is the fourth indentation in the margin of section twenty-
six of article three of the Missouri constitution. The apparent
error of Congress becomes an accurate statement of the will
and intention of that body. The surprising part of the whole
affair is not. Why did Congress fail to notice its error (?)! but
is. Why did it take nearly nine decades to discover that Congress
had accurately stated what that body had intended to state!
Although Congress had accurately designated the free
negro and mulatto clause according to the Washington edition
of the Missouri constitution, such designation was not appli
cable to the St. Louis edition or to the Missouri newspaper
reprints of that document.^* It seems strange that the people
" Carr, An Error in Besol of Cong. Admitting Mo. into the Union, p. 7, re
printed from the Mass. Hist Soc. Proceed., (2nd ser. vol. XIII) Feb. 1900.
>' Senate Doc. 1 and House Doc. 2.
" Hodder. Side Lights on Mo. Comp., In Mo. Hist Beview, V. 148f.
" Cf., Mo. const, as printed In Mo. Intell, July 22, 1820.

Statehood in the Union. 315
of Missouri did not notice this latter discrepancy especially in
view of the fact that the local newspapers had printed in full
the Missouri constitution, the proceedings of Congress on the
Missouri question; the report of the select committee of Con
gress, and the resolution of March 2, 1821. However, in no
article, letter or editorial, that we have read, did there appear
the slightest intimation of such an error before June 13th.^'
Until evidence to the contrary has been produced, we assert
that all indirect proof points to the ignorance of the people
of Missouri regarding this error prior to June, 1821. Although
this ignorance or absence of observation of Missourians seems
strange, it is by no means inexcusable. The newspaper editions
of the constitution had appeared nearly a year before and by
1821 were probably largely destroyed and the official edition
had been a small one in numbers: both editions were thus in
accessible to perhaps ninety per cent, of the inhabitants. Fur
ther, it had become nation-wide information by March 2, 1821,
that Congress objected only to the free negro and mulatto
clause in Missouri's constitution. Those familiar with Missouri's
constitution knew that this clause was in the twenty-sixth sec
tion of the third article. The resolution of March 2, 1821, by
designating the fourth clause of this section as the objectionable
clause did not, thereby, designate anything that would have
stimulated examination by the average man. This natural,
though perhaps uncritical, attitude was doubtless unconsciously
strengthened by the logical absence of any criticism emanating
from the statesmen at Washington on this point. The ques
tion at issue in Missouri was not: What does the resolution of
Congress object to in our constitution? but was: Shall we
conform to the resolution, and if so, are we bound by such con
formity? When the resolution of Congress was considered by the
general assembly of Missouri, there was opposition to passing
the solemn public act. It is impossible to say accurately how
strong was this opposition. Some objected to the wording of
the solemn public act, others to the entire condition imposed

" All the newspapers published in Missouri at this time were consulted.
There were, however, a number of missing issues in the various flies.

316 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
by Congress. At this juncture Henry S. Geyer, Speaker of
the House, later United States Senator from Missouri, in a
speech advocating the passage of the solemn public act, pointed
out that the clause in the Missouri constitution designated by
Congress was not the free negro and mulatto clause to which
that body objected. The Missouri Gazette of June 13, 1821,
stated that this error was "a fact not generally known." Fol
lowing this revelation by Geyer, the solemn public act passed
by a large majority. In a letter written May 23, 1892, by
Judge Samuel Treat, St. Louis, to Mr. Carr, it was stated that
the solemn public act was drawn up by Henry S. Geyer, who
had told him "that the strange mis-recital was observed by the
General Assembly and that it aided materially in securing the
passage of the act." ^* Professor Hodder did not believe that
the legislature was so informed, but this position is proven
absolutely untenable as shown by the proceedings of the
legislature as given in the Missouri Gazette of June 13, 1821.
Not only was the Missouri general assembly aware of the seem
ing error made by Congress, and was thereby more strongly
induced to accede to the condition imposed by Congress, but
it is almost certain that after June 13, 1821, the people of Mis
souri were also aware of this error. Before the delivery of
Geyer's speech, however, there was no hint given in any news
paper that this error had been noticed. To Henry S. Geyer
must be given the honor of first detecting the misstatement by
Congress, of being the author of the solemn public act of Mis
souri, and of being the principal advocate in the passage of that
act. The binding force of the solemn public act in constitutional
law was operative only to the extent of charging the President
of the United States to admit Missouri in pursuance of the resolu
tion of Congress of March 2, 1821. Legally it was no binding
obligation on Missouri. The general assembly of the State could
amend the constitution acting only in a definite manner. The
condition imposed by Congress was really an attempt to amend
the Missouri constitution, but curiously, such an amendment
was to be made by ordinary legislative process and not accord
s' Carr, Error, etc., p. 8.

Statehood in the Union. 317
ing to the amending clauses of the Missouri constitution. The
general assembly of Missouri acting in an ordinary manner did
not have the power to amend the constitution, and, as it was
the creature of the constitution, it could act only as that docu
ment prescribed.
The moral force behind the solemn public act was, however,
obvious and it was not until 1847 that a Missouri legislature
openly violated it. In that year it was enacted: "No free negro
or mulatto shall, under any pretext, emigrate to this State,
from any other State or Territory." ^^ The command placed
by the constitution of 1820 in section twenty-six of article
three on the Missouri general assembly had finally been obeyed
despite the resolution of Congress of March 2, 1821, and the
solemn public act of Missouri of June 28, 1821.
The general assembly did not confine its activity to passing
the solemn public act at this session. A number of laws were
enacted, of which some were of importance. Acts were passed
for the relief of debtors and creditors, for the establishment of
loan offices — an expensive experiment — for the government
of the militia, for the regulation of courts and judicial procedure
and for the abolishment of imprisonment for debt in certain
cases, and for further providing for the permanent seat of
government. A remarkable law was enacted lowering the
compensation of the members of the general assembly to three
dollars a day and of the president of the senate and the speaker
of the house to $4.50 a day each, but providing for the same
compensation of the two chief clerks, five dollars a day, as had
been previously set.^^ The appropriation bill for this session
carried eight thousand dollars for the legislators' salaries and
mileage, nine hundred and five dollars for printing, $220.08%
for miscellaneous expenses, and three hundred dollars for the

"Mo. B. S., 1855, II. 1101. Law passed Feb. 16, 1847. The statement
made by Professor Hodder that In 1825 the Missouri legislature passed an act
excluding negroes and mtUattoes "from the State unless citizens of another State,
in which case they were required to prove their citizenship by presenting natural
ization papers," is not accurate. NaturaUzation papers were not mentioned in
this act. (Mo. R. S., 1825, pp. 600f.) Such persons were required to produce
a certificate, attested by the seal of some court of record in some one of the
United States, evidencing that he was a citizen of such State. Cf., Mo. B. S.,
1835, pp. 414fl; Mo. R. S., 1845, pp. 755ff.
" Mo. Laws, 1st G. A., special sess., pp. 20f.

318 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
inception of the loan office experiment — a total of $9,425.08%.^"
Several special or private laws were also enacted. The resolutions
passed and approved related to defining the southern boundary
of the State, to the selection of the United States land wherein
to locate the permanent seat of government, to the transmission
by the Governor of a copy of the solemn public act to the Presi
dent of the United States and to each member of Congress, and
to a memorial to Congress respecting lead mines.
Ten amendments were proposed to the Missouri constitu
tion at this session. The first abolished the ofifice of Chancellor
and gave chancery jurisdiction to the Supreme Court and the
Circuit Courts. The second vested law and equity jurisdiction
in these latter courts but gave the general assembly power to
establish courts of chancery. The third made the tenure of
supreme and circuit court judges elective by a joint vote of both
houses of the legislature. The fourth gave the general assembly
power to fix the compensation of these judges and of the chan
cellor. The fifth made the same provision in regard to the
governor's salary except that it could not be diminished during
his term. The sixth disqualified United States salaried officials,
while holding office, from holding a salaried State office. The
seventh made the tenure of the auditor, secretary of state and
attorney general, elective by a joint vote of both houses of the
legislature. The eighth repealed the two thousand dollars
salary clause for the governor that was in the constitution.
The ninth repealed the two thousand dollars salary clause for
judges. The tenth vacated the higher state judicial offices at
the end of the first session of the next general assembly provided
their successors had been elected and qualified.'" At the first
session of the second general assembly of Missouri held in
November-December, 1822, seven of these proposed amend
ments were adopted and became part of the constitution. These
were the first, second, fourth, sixth, eighth, ninth and tenth of
the foregoing enumerated."
During the special session in June, 1821, an attempt was
made to bring up the question of a state bank. Several peti-
" IMd., pp. 27f.
"Ibid., pp. 38f.
" Mo. Laws, 2nd G. A., 1st sess., pp. 146f.

Statehood in the Union. 319
tions and resolutions were presented from the inhabitants of
St. Louis county requesting the establishment of a state bank
and a bill was reported by Mr. Ball from a select committee
favoring such a proposition. This bill was, however, ordered
indefinitely postponed by a vote of twenty -four to seventeen.'^
After this vote had been taken a petition was presented from
Montgomery county, praying that no state bank be established.
Petitions from Howard, Cooper and Chariton counties relating
to this subject were also presented, but these were conflicting
in their purposes." There was, however, no determined de
mand for a state bank and there was a widespread opposition to
such an institution. The unfortunate experiences of other
states with such affairs were strong arguments against Missouri
venturing into this field and it was not until 1837 that Missouri
took this step.
The legislative activity of the June, 1821, session of the
Missouri general assembly seems to have met with little criti
cism and was regarded as generally good. The Jackson Inde
pendent Patriot of July 7, 1821, did not favor the act for the
relief of debtors and creditors, and thought that this act worked
a hardship on the honest creditor. Public opinion supported
the loan office law and was practically unanimous in favoring
the solemn public act. Fourth of July celebrations were held
in different parts of the State at which toasts were drunk in
honor of Missouri and her potential admission.'* Representa
tive of these were the toasts drunk at a "Dinner given by the
Young Men of St. Louis at Bennett's Mansion House. Wm.
V. Rector, presided." Following were some of the latter:
"The President's Proclamation for the admission of Missouri — 'If it were
done, when 'tis done, then t'were weU it were done quickly."
"The People of Missouri — WiUing to contend for their just rights with
moderation: ready to defend them at the point of the bayonet."
"The American Senate — They are not to be intimidated by the threats of
Brennus or the machinations of CataUne." "
The long longed for proclamation of President Monroe
was issued on August 10, 1821. In it were recited the joint

"Jackson (Mo.) Independent Patriot, July 7. 1821.
•' Ibid.
" St Louis Enq., July 7, 21, 1821.
¦' St Louis Enq., July 7, 1821.

320 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
resolution of Congress of March 2nd, and that part of Missouri's
solemn public act which agreed to the condition imposed by
Congress. It stated that in pursuance of the former resolution,
the authority therein vested in the president, and the compliance
of the Missouri general assembly with the condition imposed,
the President declared "the admission of the said State of
Missouri into this Union is declared to be complete." '*
Missouri's Struggle for Statehood ended in legal parlance
on August 10, 1821. Few states have had greater difficulties
in reaching this goal. No state has had abler public men
working for her interests. And no people has conducted itself
more temperately in the face of frequently insulting circumstances
drawn out over years, than the state founders of Missouri from
1804 to 1821.

"• R. S. of Mo., 1825, pp. 69f ; Richardson, II. 95f.

APPENDIX I.

MEMORIAL.
OF THE CITIZENS OF MISSOURI TERRITORY.

To the honourable the Senate and the House of Representatives,
of the United States of America, in Con
gress Assembled,
The Petition of the undersigned inhabitants of the Territory of
Missouri respectfully showeth:
That your petitioners live within that part of the Territory
of Missouri which lies between the latitudes 36 degrees 30
minutes, & 40 degrees North, and between the Mississippi river
to the East and the Osage boundary line to the West. They
pray that they may be admitted into the Union of the states
within these limits.
They conceive that their numbers entitle them to the
benefits and to the rank of a state government. Taking the
progressive increase during former years, as the basis of the
calculation, they estimate their present numbers at upwards
of 40,000 souls. Tennessee, Ohio, and the Mississippi state
were admitted with smaller numbers, and the treaty of cession
guarantees this great privilege to your petitioners as soon as
it can be granted under the principles of the Federal Constitu
tion. They have passed eight years in the first grade of ter
ritorial government, five in the second; they have evinced their
attachment to the honour and integrity of the Union during
the late war, and they, with deference, urge their right to be
come a member of the great Republick.
They forbear to dilate upon the evils of the territorial
government, but will barely name, among the grievances of
this condition —
M S— 21 (321)

322 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
1. That they have no vote in your honourable body, and
yet are subject to the indirect taxes imposed by you.
2. That the veto of the territorial executive is absolute
upon the acts of the territorial legislature.
3. That the superior court is constructed on principles
unheard of in any other system of jurisprudence, having primary
cognizance of almost every controversy, civil and criminal, and
subject to correction by no other tribunal!!!
4. That the powers of the territorial legislature are limited
in the passage of laws of a local nature, owing to the paramount
authority of Congress to legislate upon the same subject.
The boundaries which they solicit for the future state, they
believe to be the most reasonable and proper that can be de
vised. The southern limit will be an extension of the line that
divides Virginia and North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky.
The northern will correspond nearly with the north limit of the
territory of Illinois and with the Indian boundary line, near the
mouth of the River Des Moines. A front of three and a half
degrees upon the Mississippi will be left to the South, to form
the territory of Arkansas, with the River Arkansas traversing
its centre. A front of three & a half degrees more, upon a medium
depth of 200 miles, with the Missouri River in the centre, will
form the State of Missouri. Another front of equal extent,
embracing the great River St. Pierre, will remain above, to
form another state, at some future day.
The boundaries, as solicited, will include all the country
to the north and west to which the Indian title has been extin
guished. They will include the body of the population.
They will make the Missouri River the centre, and not the
boundary of the state.
Your petitioners deprecate the idea of making the civil
divisions of the states to correspond with the natural divisions
of the country. Such divisions will promote that tendency to
separate, which it is the policy of the Union to counteract.
The above described boundaries are adapted to the lo
calities of the country.

Memorial of the Citizens of Missouri Territory. 323
The woodland districts are found towards the great rivers.
The interior is composed of vast regions of naked and sterile
plains, stretching to the Shining Mountains. The states must
have large fronts upon the Mississippi, to prevent themselves
from being carried into these deserts. —
Besides, the country north & south of the Missouri is nec
essary each to the other, the former possessing a rich soil desti
tute of minerals, the latter abounding in mines of lead and iron,
and thinly sprinkled with spots of ground fit for cultivation.
Your petitioners hope that their voice may have some
weight in the division of their own country, and in the for
mation of their state boundaries; and that statesmen, ignorant
of its localities, may not undertake to cut up their territory
with fanciful divisions which may look handsome on paper,
but must be ruinous in effect.
And your petitioners will pray, &c.
S. Hall, Printer, St. Louis. [1817.]

APPENDIX II.
MEMORIAL AND RESOLUTIONS of The Legislature
of THE MISSOURI TERRITORY, and A Copy Of The
Census of the fall of 1817: Amounting To 19,218 Males. De
cember 8, 1819. Referred to a Select Committee. Washing
ton: Printed by Gales & Seaton. 1819.
To the Honorable the Senate, and House of Representatives of the
United States of America, in Congress assembled:
The Memorial of the Legislative Council, and House of
Representatives, of the Territory of Missouri, in the name and
behalf of the people of said Territory, respectfully sheweth.
That their Territory contains at present a population little
short of one hundred thousand souls, which is daily increasing,
with a rapidity almost unexampled; that their territorial limits
are too extensive to admit of a convenient, proper, and equal
administration of government; and that the present interest
and accommodation, as well as the future growth and prosperity
of their country, will be greatly promoted by the following
division, which your memorialists propose, to the end that the
people may be authorized by law to form a constitution, and
establish a state government, within the following limits:
Beginning at a point in the middle of the main channel of
the Mississippi river, at the thirty-sixth degree of north latitude,
and running thence, in a direct line, to the mouth of Big Black
river (a branch of White river) thence, up the main branch of
White river, in the middle of the main channel thereof, to where
the parallel of thirty-six degrees, thirty minutes, north latitude,
crosses the same; thence, with that parallel of latitude, due
west, to a point, from which a due north line will cross the Mis
souri river, at the mouth of Wolf river; thence, due north, to
a point due west of the mouth of Rock river, thence, due east,
to the middle of the main channel of the river Mississippi, in
the middle of the main channel thereof, to the place of be
ginning. (324)

Memorial and Resolutions. 325
These are limits which, to a superficial observer, glancing
over the chart of our country, would seem a little unreasonable
and extravagant; but which, a slight attention to its geography
(or more properly to its topography) will be sufficient to satisfy
your honorable body, are not only proper, but necessary: The
districts of country that are fertile, and susceptible of settlement,
are small, and are detached and separated from each other, at
great distances, by immense plains and barren tracts, which
must for ages remain waste and uninhabited. These distant
frontier settlements, thus insulated, must ever be weak and
powerless in themselves; and can only become important and
respectable, by being united; and one of the great objects your
memorialists have in view, is the formation of an effectual
barrier for the future against Indian incursions, by pushing
forward, and fostering a strong settlement on the little river
Plate, to the west, and on the Des Moines, to the north.
Your memorialists are free to declare, and are happy in
declaring, that they do not feel the necessity of enforcing their
wishes by an elaborate detail of the blessings of self-government,
or a particular enumeration of the rights and immunities guar
antied to them by the treaty of cession. Your memorialists
feel a firm confidence, founded on the wise and generous policy
heretofore pursued by your honorable body (and to which they
owe their existence as a portion of the great American family)
that they need only pray to be incorporated in the Union, and
to show that it is not only "possible," but convenient and
proper (according to the principles of the Federal Constitution)
to have their prayer answered.
There are many grievances of which your memorialists
might complain, and complain heavily too, and many that are
much more easily felt than described, yet most of them, it must
be confessed, are inseparable from the form of government
under which they live, and none of them have been imposed,
through choice, by the general government. And your memorial
ists can feel no wish or motive now to complain of old grievances
they have long borne with patiently; cheered with the hope
that their sufferings must soon have an end, they would choose
rather to forget them. There are, however, rights, privileges.

326 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
and immunities, belonging to citizens of the United States,
which your memorialists would proudly claim, to which they
aspire, and with which they pray to be invested: These, they
fondly believe, should not and will not now be regarded by
your honorable body as mere matters of grace and favor.
And though the enclosed documents are not so satisfactory
as your memorialists would wish to have forwarded, they may
still serve to shew you that the population included within the
counties of New Madrid, Lawrence, St. Genevieve, Cape Girar
deau, Washington, St. Louis, St. Charles, and Howard, (which
are within the above limits) are more than equal to the number
of inhabitants heretofore required by the laws and constitution
of the United States upon the admission of any new state into
the union; and that, whilst every thing is hoped for, from the
spirit of a generous and enlightened policy, much might have
been claimed, in justice, on the faith of the treaty of cession.
DAVID BARTON,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
BENJAMIN EMMONS,
President of the Legislative Council.
St. Louis, 22d November, 1818.
The foregoing is a true copy of the original.
D. BARTON,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Resolved, by the Legislative Council, and House of Repre
sentatives of the Territory of Missouri, That the Delegate repre
senting this Territory in Congress be requested to use his ex
ertions to procure the passage of a law, to authorize the people
of this Territory, within the limits prayed for, in the memorial
of the Legislative Council, and House of Representatives,
passed the thirteenth day of November instant, (or such other
limits, as nearly as possible to those prayed for, as Congress
will grant,) to form a constitution and state government, and
to provide for their admission into The Union, on an equal
footing with the original states.
Resolved, That the Delegate representing this Territory, as
aforesaid, be further requested to use his exertions to procure.

Memorial and Resolutions. 327
in the said proposed state, the following donations and appro
priations, to wit:
1st. Lead mines, with one section of land adjoining to
each, and salt springs, with four sections of land adjoining each,
to be leased for the use of the state.
2d. One township of land for the support of a college.
3d. One township of land, to be disposed of as the legisla
ture of the state shall direct, for the purpose of raising a fund
for- erecting state buildings, at the permanent seat of govern
ment. 4th. All vacant lots and pieces of ground, in towns or
villages, for the use of the towns or villages in which they lie,
for the support of schools.
5th. The sum of nine per centum, on the amount of all
sales of public land, within the limits of the said proposed state,
to be expended, under the direction of Congress, for the objects,
and in the manner following, that is to say; one per centum
thereof for perfecting the water communications between the
Mississippi and lake Michigan, by the Illinois and Ouisconsin
rivers. Six per centum thereof, for continuing the national
western turnpike road, from Wheeling, on the Ohio, to Saint
Louis; and two per centum thereof for opening a road direct
from Saint Louis to New Orleans.
6th. The sum of five per centum on the amount of the
same sales to be appropriated and expended under the direction
of the state legislature, as follow, to wit: two per centum for
the support of schools in the State, and three per centum for
opening roads and canals, and building bridges, within the
State. Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives
of this Territory be, and he is hereby, requested to forward to
the delegate representing this Territory in Congress, one copy
of the above resolutions, and also one copy of the memorial of
the legislative council and house of representatives to Congress
on the subject of a state government. And, also, to forward

328 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
one copy of said memorial to the Speaker of the House of Repre
sentatives in Congress.
DAVID BARTON,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
THOMAS F. RIDDICK,
President of the Legislative Council, pro tem.
The foregoing is a true copy of the original.
DAVID BARTON,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
St. Louis, 22d November, 1818.
Copy of the enumeration of the Missouri Territory, under
the act of 1st February, 1817, and which was taken and returned
in the fall of 1817 to the Governor of the Territory, as trans
mitted to me by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Howard County  3,386 6 Reps  Fractions, 386
St. Charles do. . . . 2,866 5 do  do. 366
St. Louis do  4,725 9 do  do. 225
St. Genevieve do. . . . 2,205 4 do   do. 205
Washington do. . . . 1,245 2 do  do. 245
Cape Girardeau do. . . . 2,593 5 do  do. 93
New Madrid do  669 1 do  do. 169
Lawrence do. . . . 1 , 529 3 do  do. 29
Arkansas do. no return 1
19,218 36
The census was taken in August and September, 1817, and
is the male population only, independent of the females and
blacks; to which is to be now added the internal increase and
emigration ever since.
JOHN SCOTT.

(Author's Note: — The memorial above mentions documents that were entered
with it. The author has never seen these documents in any form. They would,
undoubtedly, throw much light on the condition of the territory at this time
and it is to be greatly regretted that they have not been preserved. It is possible
that the documents referred to were the six resolutions adopted by the legislature
and very probably another was an extract of the census taken in the summer of
1817, — both of which are copied above. It should also be noted that in the
introduction to the resolution, the statement is made that the memorial was
"passed the thirteenth day of November instant." The authentication of these
documents was made by Barton on the 22nd of November.)

APPENDIX III.
MISSOURI CONSTITUTION OF 1820.
(Note: Copied from the Washington, D. C, edition, 1820.)
We, the people of Missouri, inhabiting the limits herein
after designated, by our representatives in convention as
sembled, at St. Louis, on Monday, the 12th day of June, 1820,
do mutually agree to form and establish a free and independent
republic, by the name of "The State of Missouri," and for the
government thereof do ordain and establish this constitution.
Article I. Of Boundaries.
We do declare, establish, ratify, and confirm the following
as the permanent boundaries of said state, that is to say: "Be
ginning in the middle of the Mississippi river, on the parallel of
thirty-six degrees of north latitude; thence, west, along the
said parallel of latitude, to the St. Francois river; thence, up,
and following the course of that river, in the middle of the main
channel thereof, to the parallel of latitude of thirty-six degrees
and thirty minutes; thence, west, along the same, to a point
where the said parallel is intersected by a meridian line passing
through the middle of the mouth of the Kansas river, where
the same empties into the Missouri river; thence, from the point
aforesaid, north, along the said meridian line, to the intersection
of the parallel of latitude which passes through the rapids of
the river Des Moines, making the said line correspond with
the Indian boundary line; thence, east, from the point of inter
section last aforesaid, along the said parallel of latitude, to the
middle of the channel of the main fork of the said river Des
Moines ; thence, down, and along the middle of the main channel
of the said river Des Moines, to the mouth of the same, where
it empties into the Mississippi river; thence, due east, to the
middle of the main channel of the Mississippi river; thence,
down, and following the course of the Mississippi river, in the
middle of the main channel thereof, to the place of beginning."
(329)

330 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.

Article II. Of the Distribution of Powers.
The powers of government shall be divided into three
distinct departments, each of which shall be confided to a
separate magistracy; and no person charged with the exercise
of powers properly belonging to one of those departments,
shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the
others, except in the instances hereinafter expressly directed
or permitted. Article III. Of the Legislative Power.
Sec. 1. The legislative power shall be vested in a "General
Assembly," which shall consist of a "Senate," and a "House
of Representatives." Sec. 2. The house of representatives shall consist of
members to be chosen every second year, by the qualified
electors of the several counties. Each county shall have at
least one representative, but the whole number of representa
tives shall never exceed one hundred.
Sec. 3. No person shall be a member of the house of
representatives who shall not have attained to the age of
twenty-four years; who shall not be a free white male citizen
of the United States; who shall not have been an inhabitant
of this state two years, and of the county which he represents,
one year, next before his election, if such county shall have
been so long established, but, if not, than of the county or
counties from which the same shall have been taken; and who
shall not, moreover, have paid a state or county tax.
Sec. 4. The general assembly, at their first session, and
in the years one thousand eight hundred and twenty-two, and
one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four, respectively,
and every fourth year thereafter, shall cause an enumeration
of the inhabitants of this state to be made; and, at the first
session after each enumeration, shall apportion the number of
representatives among the several counties, according to the
number of free white male inhabitants therein.
Sec. 5. The senators shall be chosen by the qualified
electors for the term of four years. No person shall be a senator

Missouri Constitution of 1820. 331
who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years; who
shall not be a free white male citizen of the United States; who
shall not have been an inhabitant of this state four years, and
of the district which he may be chosen to represent, one year,
next before his election, if such district shall have been so long
established, but, if not, then of the district or districts from
which the same shall have been taken; and, who shall not,
moreover, have paid a state or county tax.
Sec. 6. The senate shall consist of not less than fourteen,
nor more than thirty- three members; for the election of whom
the state shall be divided into convenient districts, which may
be altered from time to time, and new districts established, as
public convenience may require; and the senators shall be ap
portioned among the several districts according to the number
of free white male inhabitants in each; provided, that when a
senatorial district shall be composed of two or more counties,
the counties of which such district consists shall not be entirely
separated by any county belonging to another district, and no
county shall be divided in forming a district.
Sec. 7. At the first session of the general assembly the
senators shall be divided by lot, as equally as may be, into two
classes. The seats of the first class shall be vacated at the
end of the second year, and the seats of the second class at the
end of the fourth year, so that one-half of the senators shall be
chosen every second year.
Sec. 8. After the first day of January, one thousand
eight hundred and twenty-two, all general elections shall com
mence on the first Monday in August, and shall be held bi
ennially; and the electors, in all cases, except of treason, felony,
or breach of the peace, shall be privileged from arrest during
their continuance at elections, and in going to, and returning
from, the same.
Sec. 9. The governor shall issue writs of election to fill
such vacancies as may occur in either house of the general
assembly. Sec. 10. Every free white male citizen of the United
States, who shall have attained to the age of twenty-one years,
and who shall have resided in this state one year before an elec-

332 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
tion, the last three months whereof shall have been in the
county, or district, in which he offers to vote, shall be deemed
a qualified elector of all elective offices; provided, that no
soldier, seaman, or marine, in the regular army or navy of the
United States, shall be entitled to vote at any election in this
state. Sec. 11. No judge of any court of law or equity, secretary
of state, attorney general, state auditor, state or county treas
urer, register, or recorder, clerk of any court of record, sheriff,
coroner, member of Congress, nor other person holding any
lucrative office under the United States, or this State, militia
officers, justices of the peace, and post-masters excepted, shall
be eligible to either house of the general assembly.
Sec. 12. No person who now is, or who hereafter may be,
a collector or holder of public money, nor any assistant or deputy
of such collector or holder of public money, shall be eligible to
either house of the general assembly, nor to any office of profit
or trust, until he sahll [shall] have accounted for and paid all
sums for which he may be accountable.
Sec. 13. No person while he continues to exercise the
functions of a bishop, priest, clergymen, or teacher of any
religious persuasion, denomination, society, or sect, whatsoever,
shall be eligible to either house of the general assembly; nor
shall he be appointed to any office of profit within the state,
the office of justice of the peace excepted.
Sec. 14. The general assembly shall have power to exclude
from every office of honor, trust, or profit, within this state,
and from the right of suffrage, all persons convicted of bribery,
perjury, or other infamous crime.
Sec. 15. Every person who shall be convicted of having,
directly or indirectly, given or offered any bribe to procure
his election or appointment, shall be disqualified for any office
of honor, trust, or profit, under this state; and any person who
shall give or offer any bribe to procure the election or appoint
ment of any other person, shall, on conviction thereof, be dis
qualified for an elector, or for any office of honor, trust, or profit,
under this state, for ten years after such conviction.

Missouri Constitution of 1820. 333
Sec. 16. No senator or representative shall, during the
term for which he shall have been elected, be appointed to any
civil office under this state, which shall have been created, or
the emoluments of which shall have been increased, during his
continuance in office, except to such offices as shall be filled by
elections of the people.
Sec. 17. Each house shall appoint its own officers, and
shall judge of the qualifications, elections, and returns, of its
own members. A majority of each house shall constitute a
quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from
day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members
in such manner, and under such penalties, as such house may
provide. Sec. 18. Each house may determine the rules of its pro
ceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and,
with the concurrence of two- thirds of all the members elected,
expel a member, but no member shall be expelled a second time
for the same cause. They shall each, from time to time, publish
a journal of their proceedings, except such parts as may in their
opinion require secrecy; and the yeas and nays on any question
shall be entered on the journal at the desire of any two members.
Sec. 19. The doors of each house, and of committees of the
whole, shall be kept open, except in cases which may require
secrecy; and each house may punish, by fine or imprisonment,
any person, not a member, who shall be guilty of disrespect to
the house, by any disorderly or contemptuous behavior in their
presence, during their session; provided, that such fine shall
not exceed three hundred dollars, and such imprisonment shall
not exceed forty-eight hours for one offence.
Sec. 20. Neither house shall, without the consent of the
other, adjourn for more than two days at any one time, nor
to any other place than to that in which the two houses may
be sitting. Sec. 21. Bills may originate in either house, and may be
altered, amended, or rejected, by the other; and every bill shall
be read on three different days in each house, unless two-thirds
of the house where the same is depending shall dispense with
this rule; and every bill, having passed both houses, shall be

334 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
signed by the speaker of the house of representatives, and by
the president of the senate.
Sec. 22. When any officer, civil or military, shall be ap
pointed by the joint or concurrent vote of both houses, or by
separate vote of either house of the general assembly, the votes
shall be publicly given viva voce, and entered on the journals.
The whole list of the members shall be called, and the names of
absentees shall be noted and published with the journal.
Sec. 23. Senators and representatives shall, in all cases,
except of treason, felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged
from arrest during the session of the general assembly, and for
fifteen days next before the commencement and after the
termination of each session; and for any speech or debate in
either house they shall not be questioned in any other place.
Sec. 24. The members of the general assembly shall
severally receive from the public treasury a compensation for
their services, which may, from time to time, be increased or
diminished by law; but no alteration increasing or tending
to increase the compensation of members, shall take effect
during the session at which such alterations shall be made.
Sec. 25. The general assembly shall direct, by law, in
what manner, and in what courts, suits may be brought against
the state. Sec. 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
emancipation, 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. They shall have power to pass laws; First, To prohibit the
introduction into this state of any slave who may have com
mitted any high crime in any other state or territory; Second, To
prohibit the introduction of any slave for the purpose of spec
ulation, or as an article of trade or merchandise; Third, To

Missouri Constitution of 1820, 335
prohibit the introduction of any slave, or the offspring of any
slave, who heretofore may have been or who hereafter may be,
imported from any foreign country into the United States,
or any territory thereof, in contravention of any existing stat
ute of the United States; and. Fourth, 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.
It shall be their duty, as soon as may be, to pass such laws
as may be necessary.
First, To prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming
to, and settling in, this state, under any pretext whatsoever;
and, Second, To oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with
humanity, and to abstain from all injuries to them extending
to life or limb.
Sec. 27. In prosecutions for crimes, slaves shall not be
deprived of an impartial trial by jury; and a slave convicted of
a capital offence shall suffer the same degree of punishment,
and no other, that would be inflicted on a free white person
for a like offence; and courts of justice before whom slaves shall
be tried, shall assign them counsel for their defence.
Sec. 28. Any person who shall maliciously deprive of life
or dismember a slave, shall suffer such punishment as would be
inflicted for the like offence if it were committed on a free white
person. Sec. 29. The governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of
state, auditor, treasurer, attorney general, and all judges of the
courts of law and equity, shall be liable to impeachment for
any misdemeanor in office; but judgment in such case shall
not extend farther than removal from office, and disqualification
to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit, under this state.
The party impeached, whether convicted or acquitted, shall,
nevertheless, be liable to be indicted, tried and punished, ac
cording to law.
Sec. 30. The house of representatives shall have the sole
power of impeachment. All impeachments shall be tried by
the senate; and, when sitting for that purpose, the senators

336 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
shall be on oath or affirmation to do justice according to law
and evidence. When the governor shall be tried, the presiding
judge of the supreme court shall preside; and no person shall be
convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the
senators present.
Sec. 31. A state treasurer shall be biennially appointed by
joint vote of the two houses of the general assembly, who shall
keep his office at the seat of government. No money shall be
drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations
made by law; and an accurate account of the receipts and ex
penditures of the public money shall be annually published.
Sec. 32. The appointment of all officers, not otherwise
directed by this constitution, shall be made in such manner
as may be prescribed by law; and all officers, both civil and
military, under the authority of this state, shall, before entering
on the duties of their respective offices, take an oath or affirma
tion to support the constitution of the United States, and of
this State, and to demean themselves faithfully in office.
Sec. 33. The general assembly shall meet on the third
Monday in September next; on the first Monday in November,
eighteen hundred and twenty-one; on the first Monday in
November, eighteen hundred and twenty-two; and thereafter
the general assembly shall meet once in every two years, and
such meeting shall be on the first Monday in November, unless
a different day shall be appointed by law.
Sec. 34. No county now established by law shall ever be re
duced, by the establishment of new counties, to less than twenty
miles square; nor shall any county hereafter be established
which shall contain less than four hundred square miles.
Sec. 35. Within five years after the adoption of this con
stitution, all the statute laws of a general nature, both civil and
criminal, shall be revised, digested, and promulgated, in such
manner as the general assembly shall direct, and a like revision,
digest, and promulgation, shall be made at the expiration of
every subsequent period of ten years.
Sec. 36. The style of the laws of this state shall be — "Be
it enacted by the general assembly of the state of Missouri."

Missouri Constitution of 1820. 337
Article IV. Of the Executive Power.
Sec. 1. The supreme executive power shall be vested in
a chief magistrate, who shall be styled "The Governor of the
state of Missouri."
Sec. 2. The governor shall be at least thirty-five years
of age, and a natural born citizen of the United States, or a
citizen at the adoption of the constitution of the United States,
or an inhabitant of that part of Louisiana now included in the
state of Missouri at the time of the cession thereof from France
to the United States, and shall have been a resident of the
same at least four years next before his election.
Sec. 3. The governor shall hold his office for four years,
and until a successor be duly appointed and qualified. He
shall be elected in the manner following : At the time and place
of voting for members of the house of representatives, the
qualified electors shall vote for a governor; and when two or
more persons have an equal number of votes, and a higher
number than any other person, the election shall be decided
between them by a joint vote of both houses of the general
assembly at their next session.
Sec. 4. The governor shall be ineligible for the next four
years after the expiration of his term of service.
Sec. 5. The governor shall be commander in chief of the
militia and navy of this state, except when they shall be called
into the service of the United States ; but he need not command
in person, unless advised so to do by a resolution of the general
assembly. Sec. 6. The governor shall have power to remit fines and
forfeitures, and, except in cases of impeachment, to grant re
prieves and pardons.
Sec. 7. The governor shall, from time to time, give, to the
general assembly information relative to the state of the govern
ment, and shall recommend to their consideration such measures
as he shall deem necessary and expedient. On extraordinary
occasions he may convene the general assembly by proclama
tion, and shall state to them the purpose for which they are
convened. M S— 22

338 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Sec. 8. The governor shall take care that the laws be
distributed, and faithfully executed; and he shall be a con
servator of the peace throughout the state.
Sec. 9. When any office shall become vacant, the governor
shall appoint a person to fill such vacancy, who shall continue
in office until a successor be duly appointed and qualified ac
cording to law.
Sec. 10. Every bill which shall have been passed by both
houses of the general assembly, shall, before it becomes a law,
be presented to the governor for his approbation. If he ap
prove, he shall sign it; if not, he shall return it, with his ob
jections, to the house in which it shall have originated, and the
house shall cause the objections to be entered at large on its
journals, and shall proceed to reconsider the bill. If, after
such reconsideration, a majority of all the members elected to
that house shall agree to pass the same, it shall be sent, to
gether with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall
be in like manner reconsidered, and, if approved by a majority
of all the members elected to that house, it shall become a law.
In all such cases the votes of both houses shall be taken by yeas
and nays, and the names of the members voting for and against
the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house, respectively.
If any bill shall not be returned by the governor within ten days
(Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him,
the same shall become a law in like manner as if the governor
had signed it, unless the general assembly, by its adjournment,
shall prevent its return, in which case it shall not become a law.
Sec. 11. Every resolution to which the concurrence of
the senate and house of representatives may be necessary,
except on cases of adjournment, shall be presented to the
governor, and, before the same shall take effect, shall be pro
ceeded upon in the same manner as in the case of a bill.
Sec. 12. There shall be an auditor of public accounts,
whom the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the
senate, shall appoint. He shall continue in office for four
years, and shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by
law. His office shall be kept at the seat of government.

Missouri Constitution of 1820. 339
Sec. 13. The governor shall, at stated times, receive for
his services an adequate salary, to be fixed by law, which shall
neither be increased or diminished during his continuance in
office, and which shall never be less than two thousand dollars
annually. Sec. 14. There shall be a lieutenant governor, who shall
be elected at the same time, in the same manner, for the same
term, and shall possess the same qualifications, as the governor.
The electors shall distinguish for whom they vote as governor,
and for whom as lieutenant governor.
Sec. 15. The lieutenant governor shall, by virtue of his
office, be president of the senate. In committee of the whole
he may debate on all questions; and when there is an equal
division, he shall give the casting vote in senate, and also in
joint votes of both houses.
Sec. 16. When the office of governor shall become vacant
by death, resignation, absence from the state, removal from
office, refusal to qualify, impeachment, or otherwise, the lieu
tenant governor, or in case of like disability on his part, the
president of the senate pro tempore, or, if there be no president
of the senate pro tempore, the speaker of the house of repre
sentatives, shall possess all the powers, and discharge all the
duties, of governor, and shall receive for his services the like
compensation, until such vacancy be filled, or the governor so
absent or impeached shall return or be acquitted.
Sec. 17. Whenever the office of governor shall become
vacant, by death, resignation, removal from office, or otherwise,
the lieutenant governor, or other person exercising the powers
of governor for the time being, shall, as soon as may be, cause
an election to be held to fill such vacancy, giving three months'
previous notice thereof; and the person elected shall not thereby
be rendered ineligible to the office of governor for the next
succeeding term. Nevertheless, if such vacancy shall happen
within eighteen months of the end of the term for which the late
governor shall have been elected, the same shall not be filled.
Sec. 18. The lieutenant governor, or president of the
senate pro tempore, while presiding in the senate, shall receive

340 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
the same compensation as shall be allowed to the speaker of
the house of representatives.
Sec. 19. The returns of all elections of governor and
lieutenant governor shall be made to the secretary of state, in
such manner as may be prescribed by law.
Sec. 20. Contested elections of governor and lieutenant
governor shall be decided by joint vote of both houses of the
general assembly, in such manner as may be prescribed by
law. Sec. 21. There shall be a secretary of state, whom the
governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate,
shall appoint. He shall hold his office four years, unless sooner
removed on impeachment. He shall keep a register of all the
official acts and proceedings of the governor, and when neces
sary shall attest them; and he shall lay the same, together with
all papers relative thereto, before either house of the general
assembly, whenever required so to do, and shall perform such
other duties as may be enjoined on him by law.
Sec. 22. The secretary of state shall, as soon as may be,
procure a seal of state, with such emblems and devices as shall
be directed by law, which shall not be subject to change. It
shall be called the "Great Seal of the State of Missouri," shall
be kept by the secretary of state, and all official acts of the
governor, his approbation of the laws excepted, shall be thereby
authenticated. Sec. 23. There shall be appointed in each county a sheriff
and a coroner, who, until the general assembly shall otherwise
provide, shall be elected by the qualified electors at the time
and place of electing representatives. They shall serve for two
years, and until a successor be duly appointed and qualified,
unless sooner removed for misdemeanor in office, and shall be
ineligible four years in any period of eight years. The sheriff
and coroner shall each give security for the faithful discharge
of the duties of his office, in such manner as shall be prescribed
by law. Whenever a county shall be hereafter established,
the governor shall appoint a sheriff and coroner therein, who
shall each continue in office until the next succeeding general
election, and until a successor shall be duly qualified.

Missouri Constitution of 1820. 341
Sec. 24. When vacancies happen in the office of sheriff
or coroner, they shall be filled by appointment of the governor;
and the persons so appointed shall continue in office until
successors shall be duly qualified, and shall not be thereby
rendered ineligible for the next succeeding term.
Sec. 25. In all elections of sheriff and coroner, when two
or more persons have an equal number of votes, and a higher
number than any other person, the circuit courts of the counties,
respectively, shall give the casting vote; and all contested
elections for the said offices shall be decided by the circuit
courts, respectively, in such manner as the general assembly
may by law prescribe.
Article V. Of the Judicial Power.
Sec. 1. The Judicial powers, as to matters of law and
equity, shall be vested in a "supreme court," in a "chancellor,"
in "circuit courts," and in such inferior tribunals as the general
assembly may, from time to time, ordain and establish.
Sec. 2. The supreme court, except in cases otherwise
directed by this constitution, shall have appellate jurisdiction
only, which shall be co-extensive with the state, under the
restrictions and limitations in this constitution provided.
Sec. 3. The supreme court shall have a general superin
tending control over all inferior courts of law. It shall have
power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo war
ranto, certiorari, and other original remedial writs, and to hear
and determine the same.
Sec. 4. The supreme court shall consist of three judges,
any two of whom shall be a quorum; and the said judges shall
be conservators of the peace throughout the state.
Sec. 5. The state shall be divided into convenient dis
tricts, not to exceed four, in each of which the supreme court
shall hold two sessions annually, at such place as the general
assembly shall appoint; and, when sitting in either district, it
shall exercise jurisdiction over causes originating in that dis
trict only: Provided, however, that the general assembly may,
at any time hereafter, direct, by law, that the said court shall
be held at one place only.

342 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Sec. 6. The circuit court shall have jurisdiction over all
criminal cases which shall not be otherwise provided for by law,
and exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil cases which shall
not be cognizable before justices of the peace, until otherwise
directed by the general assembly. It shall hold its terms in
such place in each county as may be by law directed.
Sec. 7. The state shall be divided into convenient cir
cuits, for each of which a judge shall be appointed, who, after
his appointment, shall reside, and be a conservator of the peace,
within the circuit for which he shall be appointed.
Sec. 8. The circuit courts shall exercise a superintending
control over all such inferior tribunals as the general assembly
may establish, and over justices of the peace in each county
in their respective circuits.
Sec. 9. The jurisdiction of the court of chancery shall be
co-extensive with the state, and the times and places of holding
its sessions shall be regulated in the same manner as those of
the supreme court.
Sec. 10. The court of chancery shall have original and
appellate jurisdiction in all matters of equity, and a general
control over executors, administrators, guardians, and minors,
subject to appeal, in all cases, to the supreme court, under such
limitations as the general assembly may, by law, provide.
Sec. 11. Until the general assembly shall deem it expedient
to establish inferior courts of chancery, the circuit courts shall
have jurisdiction in matters of equity, subject to appeal to the
court of chancery, in such manner, and under such restrictions,
as shall be prescribed by law.
Sec. 12. Inferior tribunals shall be established in each
county for the transaction of all county business ; for appointing
guardians; for granting letters testamentary, and of adminis
tration; and for settling the accounts of executors, adminis
trators, and guardians.
Sec. 13. The governor shall nominate, and, by and with
the advice and consent of the senate, appoint, the judges of the
supreme court, the judges of the circuit courts, and the chan
cellor, each of whom shall hold his office during good behavior,
and shall receive for his services a compensation, which shall

Missouri Constitution of 1820. 343
not be diminished during his continuance in office, and which
shall not be less than two thousand dollars annually.
Sec. 14. No person shall be appointed a judge of the
supreme court, nor of a circuit court, nor chancellor, before he
shall have attained to the age of thirty years; nor shall any
person continue to exercise the duties of any of said offices after
he shall have attained to the age of sixty-five years.
Sec. 15. The courts, respectively, shall appoint their
clerks, who shall hold their offices during good behavior. For
any misdemeanor in office they shall be liable to be tried and
removed by the supreme court, in such manner as the general
assembly shall by law provide.
Sec. 16. Any judge of the supreme court, or of the circuit
court, or the chancellor, may be removed from office on the
address of two-thirds of each house of the general assembly to
the governor for that purpose; but each house shall state, on its
respective journal, the cause for which it shall wish the removal
of such judge or chancellor, and give him notice thereof; and he
shall have the right to be heard in his defence in such manner
as the general assembly shall by law direct; but no judge nor
chancellor shall be removed in this manner for any cause for
which he might have been impeached.
Sec. 17. In each county there shall be appointed as many
justices of the peace as the public good may be thought to
require. Their powers and duties, and their duration in office,
shall be regulated by law.
Sec. 18. An attorney general shall be appointed by the
governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate.
He shall remain in office four years, and shall perform such
duties as shall be required of him by law.
Sec. 19. All writs and process shall run, and all prosecu
tions shall be conducted, in the name of the "State of Missouri;"
all writs shall be tested by the clerk of the court from which
they shall be issued, and all indictments shall conclude, "against
the peace and dignity of the state."

344 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.

Article VI. Of Education.
Sec. 1. Schools, and the means of education, shall forever
be encouraged in this state; and the general assembly shall
take measures to preserve, from waste or damage, such lands
as have been, or may hereafter be, granted by the United States
for the use of schools within each township in this state, and
shall apply the funds, which may arise from such lands, in strict
conformity to the object of the grant, and one school, or more,
shall be established in each township as soon as practicable
and necessary, where the poor shall be taught gratis.
Sec. 2. The general assembly shall take measures for the
improvement of such lands as have been, or hereafter may be,
granted by the United States to this state for the support of a
seminary of learning; and the funds accruing from such lands,
by rent or lease, or in any other manner, or which may be ob
tained from any other source, for the purposes aforesaid, shall
be and remain a permanent fund to support a university for
the promotion of literature, and of the arts and sciences; and
it shall be the duty of the general assembly, as soon as may be,
to provide effectual means for the improvement of such lands,
and for the improvement and permanent security of the funds
and endowments of such institution.
Article VII. Of Internal Improvement.
Internal improvement shall forever be encouraged by the
government of this state; and it shall be the duty of the general
assembly, as soon as may be, to make provision by law for
ascertaining the most proper objects of improvement, in relation
both to roads and navigable waters; and it shall also be their
duty to provide by law for a systematic and economical appli
cation of the funds appropriated to those objects.
Article VIII. Of Banks.
The general assembly may incorporate one banking com
pany, and no more, to be in operation at the same time. The
bank to be incorporated may have any number of branches,
not to exceed five, to be established by law; and not more than

Missouri Constitution of 1820. 345
one branch shall be established at any one session of the general
assembly. The capital stock of the bank to be incorporated
shall never exceed five millions of dollars at least one-half of
which shall be reserved for the use of the state.
Article IX. Of the Militia.
Sec. 1. Field officers and company officers shall be elected
by the persons subject to militia duty within their respective
commands; brigadiers general shall be elected by the field
officers of their respective brigades; and majors general by the
brigadiers and field officers of their respective divisions, until
otherwise directed by law.
Sec. 2. General and field officers shall appoint their
officers of the staff.
Sec. 3. The governor shall appoint an adjutant general,
and all other militia officers, whose appointments are not other
wise provided for in this constitution.
Article X. Of Miscellaneous Provisions.
Sec. 1. The general assembly of this state shall never
interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United
States, nor with any regulation Congress may find necessary
for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers.
No tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the United
States, nor shall lands belonging to persons residing out of the
limits of this state ever be taxed higher than the lands belonging
to persons residing within the state.
Sec. 2. The state shall have concurrent jurisdiction on
the river Mississippi, and on every other river bordering on the
said state, so far as the said river shall form a common boundary
to the said state, and any other state or states, now, or hereafter
to be, formed and bounded by the same; and the said river
Mississippi, and the navigable rivers and waters leading into the
same, whether bordering on or within this state, shall be common
highways, and forever free to the citizens of this state and of
the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll,
therefor, imposed by the state.

346 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Article XI. Of the Permanent Seat of Government.
Sec. 1. The general assembly, at their first session, shall
appoint five commissioners, for the purpose of selecting a place
for the permanent seat of government, whose duty it shall be
to select four sections of the land of the United States, which
shall not have been exposed to public sale.
Sec. 2. If the commissioners believe the four sections of
land so by them to be selected, be not a suitable and proper
situation for the permanent seat of government, they shall
select such other place as they deem most proper for that pur
pose, and report the same to the general assembly at the time of
making their report, provided for in the first section of this ar
ticle; provided, that no place shall be selected which is not
situated on the bank of the Missouri river, and within forty
miles of the mouth of the river Osage.
Sec. 3. If the general assembly determine that the four
sections of land, which may be selected by authority of the
first section of this article, be a suitable and proper place for
the permanent seat of government, the said commissioners
shall lay out a town thereon, under the direction of the general
assembly; but, if the general assembly deem it most expedient
to fix the permanent seat of government at the place to be
selected by authority of the second section of this article, they
shall so determine, and, in that event, shall authorize the said
commissioners to purchase any quantity of land, not exceeding
six hundred and forty acres, which may be necessary for the
purpose aforesaid; and the place so selected shall be the per
manent seat of government of this state, from and after the first
day of October, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-six.
Sec. 4. The general assembly, in selecting the above
mentioned commissioners, shall choose one from each extreme
part of the state, and one from the centre, and it shall require
the concurrence of at least three of the commissioners to decide
upon any part of the duties assigned them.

Missouri Constitution of 1820. 347
Article XII. Mode of Amending the Constitution.
The general assembly may, at any time, propose such
amendments to this constitution as two-thirds of each house
shall deem expedient, which shall be published in all the news
papers published in this state, three several times, at least
twelve months before the next general election; and if, at the
first session of the general assembly, after such general election,
two-thirds of each house shall, by yeas and nays, ratify such
proposed amendments, they shall be valid to all intents and
purposes, as parts of this constitution; provided, that such
proposed amendments shall be read on three several days, in
each house, as well when the same are proposed, as when they
are finally ratified.
Article XIII. Declaration of Rights.
That the general, great, and essential principles of liberty
and free government may be recognized and established, we
declare, 1. That all political power is vested in, and derived
from, the people.
2. That the people of this state have the inherent, sole,
and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and
police thereof, and of altering and abolishing their constitution
and form of government, whenever it may be necessary to their
safety and happiness.
3. That the people have the right peaceably to assemble
for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the
powers of government for redress of grievances, by petition or
remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms, in defence of
themselves and of the state, cannot be questioned.
4. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to
worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own
consciences; that no man can be compelled to erect, support,
or attend any place of worship, or to maintain any minister of
the gospel, or teacher of religion; that no human authority can
control or interfere with the rights of conscience ; that no person
can ever be hurt, molested, or restrained in his religious pro-

348 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
fession or sentiments, if he do not disturb others in their re
ligious worship.
5. That no person, on account of his religious opinions,
can be rendered ineligible to any office of trust or profit under
this state; that no preference can ever be given by law to any
sect or mode of worship; and that no religious corporation can
ever be established in this state.
6. That all elections shall be free and equal.
7. That courts of justice ought to be open to every person,
and certain remedy afforded for every injury to person, property,
or character; and that right and justice ought to be administered
without sale, denial, or delay; and that no private property
ought to be taken or applied to public use without just com
pensation. 8. That the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.
9. That, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the
right to be heard by himself and his counsel; to demand the
nature and cause of accusation; to have compulsory process
for witnesses in his favor; to meet the witnesses against him
face to face; and, in prosecutions on presentment or indictment,
to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of the vicinage; that the
accused cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself,
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judg
ment of his peers or the law of the land.
10. That no person, after having been once acquitted by
a jury, can, for the same offence, be again put in jeopardy of
life or limb, but if, in any criminal prosecution, the jury be
divided in opinion at the end of the term, the court before which
the trial shall be had, may, in its discretion, discharge the jury,
and commit or bail the accused for trial at the next term of
such court.
11. That all persons shall be bailable by suflficient sureties,
except for capital offences, when the proof is evident or the
presumption great, and the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus cannot be suspended, unless when, in case of rebellion
or invasion, the public safety may require it.
12. That excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive
fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Missouri Constitution of 1820. 349
13. That the people ought to be secure in their persons,
papers, houses, and effects, from unreasonable searches and
seizures; and no warrant to search any place or to seize any
person or thing can issue, without describing the place to be
searched, or the person or thing to be seized, as nearly as may
be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirma
tion. 14. That no person can, for an indictable offence, be pro
ceeded against criminally by information, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in
actual service in time of war or public danger, or, by leave of
the court, for oppression or misdemeanor in office.
15. That treason against the state can consist only in
le-vying war against it, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them
aid and comfort; that no person can be convicted of treason
unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt
act, or on his own confession in open court; that no person can
be attainted of treason or felony by the general assembly; that
no conviction can work corruption of blood or forfeiture of
estate; that the estates of such persons as may destroy their
own lives shall descend or vest as in cases of natural death;
and when any person shall be killed by casualty there ought
to be no forfeiture by reason thereof.
16. That the free communication of thoughts and opin
ions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and that every
person may freely speak, write, and print, on any subject,
being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. That, in all
prosecutions for libels, the truth thereof may be given in evi
dence, and the jury may determine the law and the facts, under
the direction of the court.
17. That no ex-post facto law, nor law impairing the
obligation of contracts, or retrospective in its operation, can
be passed; nor can the person of a debtor be imprisoned for
debt after he shall have surrendered his property for the benefit
of his creditors in such manner as may be prescribed by law.
18. That no person who is religiously scrupulous of
bearing arms can be compelled to do so, but may be compelled
to pay an equivalent for military service in such manner as

350 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
shall be prescribed by law; and that no priest, preacher of the
gospel, or teacher of any religious persuasion or sect, regularly
ordained as such, be subject to militia duty, or compelled to
bear arms.
19. That all property subject to taxation in this state
shall be taxed in proportion to its value.
20. That no title of nobility, hereditary emolument,
privilege, or distinction, shall be granted; nor any office created
the duration of which shall be longer than the good behavior
of the officer appointed to fill the same.
21. That migration from this state cannot be prohibited.
22. That the military is, and, in all cases, and at all
times, shall be, in strict subordination to the civil power; that
no soldier can, in time of peace, be quartered in any house
without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in
such manner as may be prescribed by law; nor can any appro
priation for the support of an army be made for a longer period
than two years.
Schedule.
Sec. 1. That no inconvenience may arise from the change
of government, we declare, that all writs, actions, prosecutions,
judgments, claims, and contracts, of individuals, and of bodies
corporate, shall continue as if no change had taken place;
and all process which may, before the third Monday in September
next, be issued under the authority of the Territory of Missouri,
shall be as valid as if issued in the name of the state.
Sec. 2. All laws now in force in the Territory of Missouri,
which are not repugnant to this constitution, shall remain in
force until they expire by their own limitations, or be altered
or repealed by the general assembly.
Sec. 3. All fines, penalties, forfeitures, and escheats,
accruing to the Territory of Missouri, shall accrue to the use
of the state.
Sec. 4. All recognizances heretofore taken, or which may
be taken before the third Monday in September next, shall
remain valid, and shall pass over to, and may be prosecuted in,
the name of the state; and all bonds executed to the governor

Missouri Constitution of 1820. 351
of the territory, or to any other officer or court, in his official
capacity, shall pass over to the governor, or other proper state
authority, and to their successors in office, for the uses therein
respectively expressed, and may be sued for and recovered ac
cordingly. All criminal prosecutions and penal actions, which
have arisen, or which may arise before the third Monday in
September next, and which shall then be depending, shall be
prosecuted to judgment and execution in the name of the state.
All actions at law which now are, or which, on the third Monday
in September next, may be, depending in any of the courts of
record, in the Territory of Missouri, may be commenced in, or
transferred to, any court of record of the state which shall have
jurisdiction of the subject matter thereof; and all suits in equity
may, in like manner, be commenced in, or transferred to, the
court of chancery.
Sec. 5. All officers, civil and military, now holding com
missions under authority of the United States, or of the ter
ritory of Missouri, shall continue to hold and exercise their
respective offices until they shall be superceded under the
authority of the state; and all such officers holding commissions
under the authority of the territory of Missouri, shall receive
the same compensation which they have hitherto received, in
proportion to the time they shall be so employed.
Sec. 6. The first meeting of the general assembly shall be
at St. Louis, with power to adjourn to any other place; and the
general assembly, at the first session thereof, shall fix the seat
of government until the first day of October, one thousand
eight hundred and twenty-six; and the first session of the general
assembly shall have power to fix the compensation of the members
thereof; any thing in the constitution to the contrary notwith
standing. Sec. 7. Until the first enumeration shall be made, as
directed in this constitution, the county of Howard shall be
entitled to eight representatives; the county of Cooper to four
representatives; the county of Montgomery to two representa
tives; the county of Lincoln to one representative; the county
of Pike to two representatives; the county of St. Charles to
three representatives; the county of St. Louis to six repre-

352 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
sentatives; the county of Franklin to two representatives; the
county of Jefferson to one representative; the county of Wash
ington to two representatives; the county of Ste. Genevieve to
four representatives; the county of Cape Girardeau to four
representatives; the county of New Madrid to two repre
sentatives; the county of Madison to one representative; the
county of Wayne to one representative; and that part of the
county of Lawrence situated within this state shall attach to,
and form part of, the county of Wayne, until otherwise pro
vided by law, and the sheriff of the county of Wayne shall
appoint the judges of the first election, and the place of holding
the same, in the part thus attached; and any person who shall
have resided within the limits of this state five months previous
to the adoption of this constitution, and who shall be otherwise
qualified, as prescribed in the third section of the third article
thereof, shall be eligible to the house of representatives, any
thing in this constitution to the contrary notwithstanding.
Sec. 8. For the first election of senators, the state shall
be divided into districts, and the apportionment shall be as
follows ; that is to say : the counties of Howard and Cooper shall
compose one district, and elect four senators; the counties of
Montgomery and Franklin shall compose one district, and elect
one senator; the county of St. Charles shall compose one dis
trict, and elect one senator; the counties of Lincoln and Pike
shall compose one district, and elect one senator; the county
of St. Louis shall compose one district, and elect two senators;
the counties of Washington and Jefferson shall compose one
district, and elect one senator; the county of St. Genevieve
shall compose one district and elect one senator; the counties
of Madison and Wayne shall compose one district, and elect one
senator; the counties of Cape Girardeau and New Madrid shall
compose one district, and elect two senators; and, in all cases
where a senatorial district consists of more than one county,
it shall be the duty of the clerk of the county second named in
that district to certify the returns of the senatorial election
within their proper county to the clerk of the county first
named, within five days after he shall have received the same;
and any person who shall have resided within the limits of this

Missouri Constitution of 1820. 353
state five months previous to the adoption of this constitution,
and who shall be otherwise qualified, as prescribed in the fifth
section of the third article thereof, shall be eligible to the senate
of this state, any thing in this constitution to the contrary
notwithstanding. Sec. 9. The president of the convention shall issue writs of
election to the sheriffs of the several counties, (or, in case of
vacancy, to the coroners,) requiring them to cause an election
to be held, on the fourth Monday in August next, for a gov
ernor, a lieutenant governor, a representative in the Congress
of the United States for the residue of the sixteenth Congress,
a representative for the seventeenth Congress, senators and
representatives for the general assembly, sheriffs, and coroners;
and the returns of all township elections, held in pursuance
thereof, shall be made to the clerk of the proper county, within
five days after the day of election; and any person who shall
reside within the limits of this state at the time of the adoption
of this constitution, and who shall be otherwise qualified, as
prescribed in the tenth section of the third article thereof, shall
be deemed a qualified elector, any thing in this constitution
to the contrary notwithstanding.
Sec. 10. The elections shall be conducted according to
the existing laws of the Missouri territory. The clerks of the
circuit courts of the several counties shall certify the returns
of the election of governor and lieutenant governor, and trans
mit the same to the speaker of the house of representatives,
at the temporary seat of government, in such time that they
may be received on the third Monday of September next. As
soon as the general assembly shall be organized, the speaker of
the house of representatives and the president, pro tempore,
of the senate shall, in the presence of both houses, examine the
returns, and declare who are duly elected to fill those offices;
and, if any two or more persons shall have an equal number of
votes, and a higher number than any other person, the general
assembly shall determine the election in the manner herein
before provided; and the returns of the election for member of
Congress shall be made to the secretary of state within thirty
days after the day of election.
M s — ^23

354 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Sec. 11. The oaths of office, herein directed to be taken,
may be administered by any judge or justice of the peace,
until the general assembly shall otherwise direct.
Sec. 12. Until a seal of state be provided, the governor may
use his private seal.
Done by the representatives of the people of Missouri,
in convention assembled, at the town of St. Louis,
on the nineteenth day of July, in the year of our Lord
one thousand eight hundred and twenty, and of the
independence of the United States of America the
forty-fifth. DAVID BARTON, President of the Convention,
and Representative from the County of St.
Louis.
From the County of Cape Girardeau.
Stephen Byrd Joseph M'Ferron
Alexander Bucknor [Buckner] Richard S. Thomas.
James Evans From the County of Cooper.
Robert P. Clark Robert Wallace.
William Sillard [Lillard]
From the County of Franklin.
John G. Heath. From the County of Howard.
Nicholas S. Burckhartt Benjamin H. Reeves
Jonathan Smith Findlay John Ray.
Duff Green From the County of Jefferson.
S. Hammond.
From the County of Lincoln.
Malcolm Henry. From the County of Montgomery.
Jonathan Ramsay James Talbott.
From the County of Madison.
Nathaniel Cook.

Missouri Constitution of 1820. 355
From the County of New Madrid.
Robert D. Dawson Christo. G. Houts.
From the County of Pike.
Stephen Cleaver. From the County of St. Charles.
Hiram H. Baber Benjamin Emmons.
Nathan Boone From the County of St. Genevieve.
R. T. Brown H. Dodge.
John D. Cook John Scott.
From the County of St. Louis.
Edw. Bates Wm. Rector
Pr. Chouteau, jun. Thos. F. Riddick
A. M'Nair John C. Sullivan.
Bernd. Pratte From the County of Washington.
John Rice Jones Samuel Perry.
John Hutchings From the County of Wayne.
Elijah Bettis.
Attest: WILLIAM G. PETTUS,
Secretary of the Convention.

AN ORDINANCE
Declaring the assent of the people of the State of Missouri, by
their representatives, in convention assembled, to certain
conditions and provisions in the act of Congress of the
sixth of March, one thousand eight hundred and twenty,
entitled "An act to authorize the people of Missouri terri
tory to form a constitution and state government, and for
the admission of such state into the Union on an equal
footing with the original states, and to prohibit slavery in
certain territories."

356 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Whereas the act of Congress of the United States of America,
approved March the sixth, one thousand eight hundred and
twenty, entitled "An act to authorize the people of Missouri
territory to form a constitution and state government, and for
the admission of such state into the Union on an equal footing
with the original states, and to prohibit slavery in certain ter
ritories," contains certain requisitions and provisions, and,
among other things, has offered to this convention, when formed,
for and in behalf of the people inhabitating this state, for their
free acceptance or rejection, the five following propositions,
and which, if accepted by this convention, in behalf of the people
as aforesaid, are to be obligatory on the United States, -viz:
"First; That section numbered sixteen in every township, and
"when such section has been sold or otherwise disposed of,
"other lands equivalent thereto, and as contiguous as may be,
"shall be granted to the state for the use of the inhabitants of
"such township for the use of schools. Second; That all salt
"springs, not exceeding twelve in number, with six sections of
"land adjoining to each, shall be granted to the said state for
"the use of said state, the same to be selected by the legislature
^'of said state, on or before the first day of January, in the year
^'one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five, and the same,
"when so selected, to be used under such terms, conditions and
"regulations, as the legislature of said state shall direct; pro-
"-vided, that no salt spring, the right whereof, now is, or here-
"after shall be confirmed or adjudged to any individual or
"individuals, shall, by this section, be granted to said state;
"and provided, also, that the legislature shall never sell or
"lease the same at any one time for a longer period than ten
"years, without the consent of Congress. Third; That five
"per cent, of the net proceeds of the sale of lands lying within
"the said territory or state, and which shall be sold by Con-
"gress, from and after the first day of January next, after de-
"ducting all expenses incident to the same, shall be reserved
"for making public roads and canals, of which three-fifths
"shall be applied to those objects within the state, under the
"direction of the legislature thereof, and the other two-fifths
"in defraying, under the direction of Congress, the expenses

Missouri Constitution of 1820. 357
"to be incurred in making of a road or roads, canal or canals,
"leading to the said state. Fourth; That four entire sections
"of land be, and the same are hereby, granted to the said state,
"for the purpose of fixing their seat of government thereon;
"which said sections shall, under the direction of the legislature
"of said state, be located, as near as may be, in one body, at
"any time, in such townships and ranges as the legislature
"aforesaid may select, on any of the public lands of the United
"States; provided, that such location shall be made prior to
"the public sale of the lands of the United States surrounding
"such location. Fifth; That thirty-six sections, or one entire
"township, which shall be designated by the President of the
"United States, together with the other lands heretofore re-
"served for that purpose, shall be reserved for the use of a
"seminary of learning, and vested in the legislature of said
"state, to be appropriated solely for the use of such seminary,
"by the Legislature."
Now, this convention, for and in behalf of the people in
habiting this state, and by the authority of the said people,
do accept the five before recited propositions offered by the
act of Congress under which they are assembled; and, in pur
suance of the conditions, requisitions, and other provisions,
in the before recited act of Congress contained, this convention,
for and in behalf of the people inhabiting this state, do ordain,
agree, and declare, that every and each tract of land sold by the
United States, from and after the first day of January next,
shall remain exempt from any tax laid by order, or under the
authority, of the state, whether for state, county, or township,
or any other purpose whatever, for the term of five years, from
and after the respective days of sale thereof; and that the
bounty lands granted, or hereafter to be granted, for military
services during the late war, shall, while they continue to be
held by the patentees, or their heirs, remain exempt as afore
said from taxation for the term of three years, from and after
the date of the patents respectively: Provided, nevertheless,
that, if the Congress of the United States shall consent to repeal
and revoke the following clause in the fifth proposition of the
sixth section of the act of Congress before recited, and in these

358 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
words, viz: "That every and each tract of land, sold by the
United States from and after the first day of January next,
shall remain exempt from any tax laid by order, or under the
authority, of the state, whether for state, county, or township,
or any other purpose whatever, for the term of five years from
and after the day of sale, and further," that this convention,
for and in behalf of the people of the state of Missouri, do
hereby ordain, consent and agree, that the same be so revoked
and repealed, without which consent of the Congress as afore
said, the said clause to remain in full force and operation as
first above provided for in this ordinance: and this convention
doth hereby request the Congress of the United States so to
modify their third proposition, that the whole amount of five
per cent, on the sale of public lands therein offered may be
applied to the construction of roads and canals, and the pro
motion of education, within this state, under the direction of
the legislature thereof. And this convention, for and in behalf
of the people inhabiting this state, and by the authority of the
said people, do further ordain, agree, and declare, that this
ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United
States. Done in convention, at St. Louis, in the state of Missouri,
this nineteenth day of July, in the year of our Lord,
one thousand eight hundred and twenty, and of the
independence of the United States of America the
forty-fifth. By order of the Convention,
DAVID BARTON, President.
Attest, William G. Pettus, Secretary.
STATE OF MISSOURI,
St. Louis, September 27, 1820.
I, David Barton, president of the convention of the late
territory of Missouri, certify the foregoing to be true copies of
the constitution of said state, and of "An ordinance declaring
the assent of the people of the state of Missouri, by their repre-

Missouri Constitution of 1820. 359
sentatives in convention assembled, to certain conditions and
provisions in the act of Congress of the sixth of March, one
thousand eight hundred and twenty, entitled 'An act to author
ize the people of Missouri territory to form a constitution and
state government, and for the admission of such state into the
Union, on an equal footing with the original states, and to
prohibit slavery in certain territories."
DAVID BARTON.

APPENDIX IV.
MISSOURI'S SOLEMN PUBLIC ACT, JUNE 26, 1821.
A SOLEMN PUBLIC ACT, declaring the assent of this
State to the fundamental condition contained in a resolution passed
by the Congress of the United States, providing for the admission
of the State of Missouri into the Union on a certain condition.
Whereas, the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States, by their resolution approved on the second day
of March, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and twenty-
one, did declare that Missouri shall be admitted into this Union,
upon an equal footing with the original States in all respects
whatever, upon the fundamental condition, that the fourth
clause of the twenty-sixth section of the third article of the
constitution, submitted on the part of said State to Congress,
shall never be construed to authorize the passage of any law,
and that no law shall be passed in conformity thereto, by which
any citizen of either of the States in this Union, shall be ex
cluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immu
nities to which such citizen is entitled under the Constitution
of the United States; provided, that the legislature of the said
State, by a solemn public act, shall declare the assent of said
state, to the said fundamental condition, and shall transmit
to the President of the U. States, on or before the fourth Monday
in November next, an authentic copy of the said act; upon the
receipt whereof, the President, by proclamation shall announce
the fact, whereupon, and without any further proceeding on
the part of Congress, the admission of said state into this Union
shall be considered as complete.
Now, for as much as the good people of this state have by
the most solemn and public act in their power, virtually assented
to the said fundamental condition, when by their representa
tives in full and free convention assembled, they adopted the
constitution of this state, and consented to be incorporated
(360)

Missouri's Solemn Public Act, 1821. 361
into the Federal Union, and governed by the constitution of
the United States, which among other things provides that the
said constitution, and the laws of the United States made in
pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be
made under the authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall
be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or law of any
state to the contrary notwithstanding; and although this
general assembly are of opinion that the congress of the United
States have no constitutional power to annex any condition
to the admission of this state into the federal Union, and that
this general assembly have no power to change the operation
of the constitution of this state, except in the mode prescribed
by the constitution itself; Nevertheless, as the congress of the
United States have desired this general assembly to declare
the assent of this state to said fundamental condition, and
forasmuch as such declaration will neither restrain, or enlarge,
limit or extend the operation of the constitution of the United
States, or of this state, but the said constitutions will remain
in all respects as if the said resolution had never passed, and
the desired declaration was never made, and because such
declaration will not divest any power or change the duties of any
of the constituted authorities of this state, or of the United
States, nor impair the rights of the people of this state, or im
pose any additional obligation upon them, but may promote
an earlier enjoyment of their vested federal rights, and this
state being moreover determined to give to her sister states,
and to the world, the most unequivocal proof of her desire to
promote the peace and harmony of the Union, Therefore,
Be it enacted and declared by the General Assembly of the State of
Missouri, and it is hereby solemnly and publicly enacted and
declared.That this state has assented and does assent that the fourth
clause of the twenty-sixth section of the third article of the
constitution of this state, shall never be construed to authorize
the passage of any law, and that no law shall be passed in con
formity thereto, by which any citizen of either of the United
States shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the

362 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
privileges and immunities to which such citizens are entitled
under the constitution of the United States.
Approved, June 26, 1821.
Terr. Laws. v. I. p. 758-759.
Mo. Sess. Act, spec. 1821, pp. 9-11.

INDEX.

NOTE: — Abbreviations: const. — Mo. constitution of 1820; const, conv. —
Mo. constitutional convention of 1820; (Del.) — Delegate to Mo. const, conv.;
f — page foUowing; n — note; pop. — population; rep. — representative; sen. —
senator or senate.
General terms, e. <?.. government, refer to Missouri or Upper Louisiana except
where otherwise indicated.

Adj. gen., const. 240, 345.
Administrative acts const, conv. 168ff.
Alcorn, James, rep. 268, 311.
Allen, Bethel, rep. 268.
Amendments, const. 228, 347; proposed 1820, 272, 277ff; 1821,
318.
Anti-Restrictionists in Mo. 1820, 121ff.
Apportionment, del. const, conv. 75n, 167; rep. & sen. 1820,
351f.
Appropriation, Mo. Leg. 1820, 285; 1821, 317.
Arkansas county, created, 46; divided, 46; opposed incorp. in
Mo. 51f; pop. 46nfn; see Pop.
Arkansas country and territory, boundary on north, 47ff;
created 48; petitions for ter. govt. 54n; Mo. R. boundary
petitions, 60; pop. 46n; omitted in Mo. ter. leg. petition,
53; relation to Mo. 47f; represented unfairly in Mo. ter^
leg. 1818, 53; trade outlet, 47f, 49; see Petitions.
Ashley, Gen. Wm. H., 265ff, 271.
Attorney gen. const. 240, 343; salary 285.
Auditor, const. 240, 338; salary 285.
Austin, Moses, 140. (363)

364 Index.
Baber, Hiram H. (Del.) 136, 149nf, 201.
Bail, const. 348.
Ball, John S. 123, 129n; rep. 268; 272; 311; on Bank 319.
Bank, State, 190f ; const. 226, 344; gen. assbly. 1820, 289; 1821,
318.
Barcroft, Elias, sen. 269.
Barton, David, (Del.) 42, 48, 84, 120f, 129, 136ff, 149n, 150nf;
pres. const, conv. 167ff, 180, 187n; author, const. 198ff,
leader conv. 203f; 249; slated for judge 258; vote for U. S.
Sen. 272; elected Barton 273f; not permitted seat in Cong.
290; letter to Mo. 1820-21, 293ff, 298f, 301; seat and salary
in Cong. 306ff, 326.
Barton, Joshua, 84, 141, 205; rep. 268f; sec. state 286.
Bassenit, G. 285.
Bates, Edward, (Del.) 82, 121, 136, 140ff; children 143n; 149nf ;
176n; on taxation 180; on draft, const. 183f, 186, 188ff,
192; author, const. 195ff, 204, 207; atty. gen. 286.
Bates, Frederick 135n; cand. gov. 251f.
Bates, William, rep. 268, 311.
Beck, Abner 124n, 129n.
Bennett, Wm. 166n.
Bent, Silas, 167; sen. 269f.
Benton, Thomas, author resol. 1819, 84ff ; 93n, 99n, 101, 114-134,
136n, 138, 149nf; slated for U. S. Sen. 258; 272, 290;
letters to Mo. 293ff; seat in Cong, and pay, 306ff.
Berry, Maj. T. 93.
Bettis, Elijah (Del.) 150nf; 201.
Bill of Rights, 1812, 33; const. 183, 206.

Index. 365
Birthplace of Del., see Del.
Bobb, John, 123; 129n.
Boggs, L. W., 93.
Bollinger, Geo. F., sen. 269.
Boone, Jesse B., rep. 268; 288.
Boone, Maj. Nathan, (Del.) 135n; 152f; 171; 196ff.
Boone county, 288.
Boone's Lick Country, pop. 42, 72n; on boundaries, 45, 57; on
del. 70f, 167; 114; pro-slavery, 117; new counties, 288; 309.
Boonville, Mo., 275.
Boulware, Philip, rep. 268.
Boundary— Ark. and Mo.: petition 1817, 39, 322; 1818, 43ff,
324f; 1819, 50f, 60; 1820, 66ff, 213, 329; see Scott.
Bounty lands, 80.
Bowles, Caleb, 123; 129n.
Brady, Thomas, 270.
Bribery, const. 220, 332.
Brickey, John S. 270; 288.
Broadhead, James O. 141.
Brown, John, 124n.
Brown, Robert T. (Del.) 150nf; 201.
Bryant, David, 119.
Buckner, Alexander, (Del.) 55n; 119n; 138n; 150nf; 176n; 179;
184; author, const. 196ff.
Burckhartt, N. S. (Del.) pro-slavery, 117n; 150nf; 201.
Byrd, Abraham, sen. 269.
Byrd, Stephen, (Del.) 21; 150f; 201.
Caldwell, James, rep. 268; 270; 310n.

366 Index.
Caldwell, Samuel K. sen. 269.
Callaway county, 288.
Campaign, State election 1820, 254-266.
Canals, 78.
Cape Girardeau county, boundary, 34, 46; cand. const, conv.
118f; delegates, 13 If; public meet. 1819, 90; Mo. River
boundary petition, 51; pop. 26. See Pop.
Capitol of Mo. 72. See Perm, and Temporary Seat of Govt.
Carr, Lucien, 313, 316.
Carr, William C. 84.
Carroll, Henry, 88f.
Caucus, 1820 in St. Louis, 121, 259.
Celebrations, see Resolutions, St. Louis etc.
Census, see Population.
Chancellor, see Judicial Department; 277.
Chancery Court, see Judicial Dept. ; 342.
Chariton, Howard county, public dinners 1819, 93, 95; 147.
Chariton county, 288.
Charless, Joseph, 99n; see Editorials, Mo. Gazette; 120; 126;
114-134; 171.
Chouteau, Col. Augustus, 20; views on govt. 23; 93n.
Chouteau, Pierre, Jr. (Del.) 121; 129f; 150nf; 176n; 192n; 200.
Christy, Wm. State auditor, 286; 288.
Circuit courts, see Judic. Dept., 342.
Clark, Bennett, sen. 269.
Clark, Mrs. Julia (Wm.) 257n.
Clark, Robert P. (Del.) 117n; 135n; 160nf; 183; 200.
Clark, Gov. Wm. 135n; cand. for gov. 256ff; 261f; 272.

Index. 367
Clay, Henry, Mo. — Me. bills, 62; toast to, 94n; second Mo.
Comp. 1821, 295ff; Mo.'s idol 1821, 304.
Cleaver, Stephen, (Del.) 152nf; 200.
Clergy, in const. 219, 332.
Cobb's amend, to Mo. bill 1821, 295.
Cole county, 288.
Collector of public money, const. 332.
College, see University of Missouri.
Committee on Enrollment, const. 192, 204.
Committee on Style, const. 188ff, 207ff.
Congress, Mo. Bill 1818, 38, 41; Mo. Question 1818-1819, 55ff;
1819-1820, 62ff; 1820-1821, 290-301. For acts relating to
Louisiana and Missouri, see Mo. Laws Organic.
Congressional Restriction of slavery in Missouri, see Congress,
Const. Conv., Public Opinion.
Constitutional Convention of Missouri, 1820; Benton on, 86nf;
committees, 182, 202ff; cost of, 175; election of delegates,
114-134; the delegates, 135-165; draft, const. 182ff; enabling
act, 68-80; Journal of, 169ff; labors of, 166-192; see Mo.
Const.; pay of del. 174ff; wire-pulHng in, 258f.
Constitutional History, see La. and Mo. Territory.
Constitutions of States and United States, general 177f.
Cook, John B. (Del.) 48; 89; 136; 149n; 150nf; conv. work,
167f; 180; 183ff; 188ff; 192; author, const. 195ff, 204, 208;
slated for judge, 258; judge, 286.
Cook, Nathaniel, (Del.) 150nf; 168n; 183f; 186; 200; camp, for
lieutenant gov. 265; 272.
Cooper county, 43; pro-slavery, 117; see Const. Conv., Pop.

368 Index.
Coroner, const. 247, 340.
Cote Sans Dessein, for temp, seat of govt. 275ff.
Counties, size, 233, 336; courts in, 246.
County courts, 342.
Cummins, Richard W. sen. 269.
Dawson, Robert D. (Del.) 150nf; 190; author, const. 196ff.
Declaration of Rights, const. 234ff; 347.
Delegates to Const. Conv. See Const. Conv.; election of, 116-
134; personnel of, 135-165; pay of, 175; list of, 354f.
Desha, Capt. R. M. 93.
Devore, Uriah J. rep. 268; 274; 276.
Didier, Pierre, State treasurer, 286.
Distribution of Powers, const. 214, 330.
Dodge, Augustus Caesar, 147n.
Dodge, Henry, (Del.) 89; 136; 144ff; 152f; 200.
Dougherty, William, rep. 269.
Douglass, Thompson, 167n; 270.
Duel, Benton-Lucas, 260n.
Dunklin county, 45.
Easton, Rufus, 11; letter to Jefferson, 1805, 21; 123; 141.
Eaton proviso to Mo. bill, 291.
Economic position of Delegates, 163.
Editorials in Mo. Newspapers, 1819 over action of Cong. 1818-
19, 99-106; 1820-21, 293, 297ff; on el. of del. 114-134.
Education, 77; 344; 209; leg. control in const. 225f, 327; see
University.
Education of Delegates, 163.
Edwards' amend, to Mo. bill, 63.

Index. 369
Edwardsville (111.) Spectator, 104, 112n.
Electors, see Leg. Dept; 331f.
Elections: Territorial, 128n; State, const. 231, 340, 348; cam
paign 1820, 255ff; first, 249, 254f, 266ff, 353; U. S. Senators,
1820, 271ff.
Elliott, Henry, cand. for lieut. gov. 1820, 265; 272.
Elston, Elias, rep. 268.
Emancipation, const. 232; 334f; see Slavery.
Emmons, Benjamin, (Del.) 42; 150nf; 168n; 180; 183f; 192;
author const. 199ff ; sen. 269; 275f ; 326.
Enabling Act for Missouri, 66ff ; 114f ; see Mo. Laws Organic.
English, Robert, rep. 268.
Ernst, Ferdinand, 112n.
Eustis' Mo. Bill 1821, 294f.
Evans, James, (Del.) 176n; 183; 185; author, const. 196ff; 201;
204.
Evans, Joseph, rep. 268; 276.
Executive Committee on Const. 235ff; 337ff.
Ex-Post Facto law, 349.
Ferguson, G. W. 121; 167; 270.
Findlay, J. S. (Del.) 93; 98; pro-slavery, 117n; 136; 151n; conv.
work, 171nf, 188ff, 191f; author, const. 199ff, 204, 208.
Flint, Rev. Timothy, 119.
Florissant, Mo. anti-restriction slavery meet. 122; for temp.
seat of govt. 275f.
Foot's Mo. Resol. 1821, 295.
Frankhn, Mo. pub. meet. July 1819, 57, 88f, 93, 95; May 1819,
92; 1821, 302, 309; for location of temp, seat of govt. 275f.
M S— 24

370 Index.
Franklin county, 43n; see Const. Conv., Pop.
Free Negroes, see Mulattoes.
French, 160; see La. Dist. and Ter.
Fromentin, Eligius, 20f.
Fugitive Slave Law, 80.
Gamble, Archibald, 167n.
Garnier, Joseph V. 167n.
Gasconade county, 288.
Geiger, John, 119.
General Assembly of Missouri: First, 1st sess. 1820, appor.
248f; members, 268ff; meeting, 270ff; committees, 271; el.
U. S. Sen. 271ff; loc. temp, seat govt. 271ff; amend, to
const. 277ff; salaries and mileage, 281f ; taxes and finances,
283ff; el. and sal. of State officials, 285f; presidential elect
ors, 287f; misc. leg., new counties, perm, seat govt. & 288;
const. 351; memorial to Cong. 294. Special Session, June
1821: no demand for, 308; gov. proc. 309; meeting, 310;
resol. of Cong. 31 Iff; solemn public act, 31 Iff; error in
Cong. Resol. 315f; const, amend, proposed, 318; public
opinion on session, 319; see also Leg. Dept.
Gentry, Richard, 93.
Geyer, Henry S. 84; 121; rep. 269; 278; 281; 289; 310n; 311; 316.
Government, French views on, 13, 15, 22f, 30f.
Governor, const. 221, 236ff, 331, 337f, 342; first State camp.
for, 256ff, 345.
Grand Jury, see Presentments.
Graves, Thomas W. rep. 268.

Index. 371
Green, Duff, (Del.) 92f; pro-slav. 117n; 136; 147ff; 150nf; work
in const, conv. 171f; 180; 183f; author, const. 199ff; 207;
rep. 268f ; 311.
Great Seal of Missouri, see Seal, State.
Hall, John, rep. 268.
Hammond, Samuel, (Del.) 120; 131n; 149n; 150nf; 167; 183;
author, const. 196ff.
Harper, William, slated for judge, 258; chancellor, 287.
Harris, Tyre, rep. 268.
Heath, John G. (Del.) 150nf; conv. work, 171f; 179; 184; 200;
rep. 268f; 311f.
Heath, R. & J. 276.
Hempstead, Ch. S. 48.
Hempstead, Edward, 34.
Hemstead, Thomas, 114.
Henry, Isaac N. 171n.
Henry, Malcolm, (Del.) 131n; 135n; 150nf; 201.
Henry «& Co., see St. Louis Enquirer.
Herculaneum, Mo. meet, at 1820, 119; for loc. temp, seat govt.
275.
Hodder, Prof. 314, 316.
Holmes' Rept. to House on Mo. Bill, 1820, 65; toast to, 94.
Homestead Bill, 146.
Honey, John W. 120.
Horrocks, Edward, 167n.
House of Representatives, see Leg. Dept.
Houts, Christo. G. (Del.) 158nf; 191; 201.
Howard, Gov. Benj. Proclamation 1812, 34.

372 Index.
Howard county, el. del. 1820, 132; State el. 1820, 265; grand
jury 1819, 97; Mt. Pleasant Bap. Assn. 1819, 91; pro-
slav. 117; slave pop. 120n; pub. meet. May 1819, 92, July
1819, 57, 88f, 93; see also Boone's Lick, Const. Conv., Pop.
Hudspeth, Geo. rep. 268.
Hunt, Wilson P. 121fn; 129nf.
Hunter, Nancy Ann, 147n.
Hutchings, John, (Del.) 39; 158nf; 201.
Illinois Enab. Act. 73f; 76.
Immigration to Mo. along Mo. River, 1812-1818, 45; 115; 133.
Impeachments, const. 230; 335.
Indians, removal of to west of Miss. R. views of Jefferson 18f.
Inferior tribunals, const. 246, 342.
Internal improvements, 78; const. 226, 327, 344.
Iowa, southern part little known 1818, 44.
Irish of St. Louis, 96.
Jackson, Mo. business and political center 1818, 55n; pub.
meet. 1819, 90; 114.
Jackson Missouri Herald, lOOn; 104; pro-slav. 120n, 130.
Jefferson, Thomas, letter on moving Indians, 19; first Mo. Comp.
65.
Jefferson county, 43n; grand jury 1819, 98; cand. for conv. 119f;
results of el. 131f.
Johnson, James, rep. 268.
Jones, John Rice (Del.) 38; 48; 136ff; children of, 140n; 144;
149nf; 168n; 176n; 183ff; 187n; 191; author, const. 196ff;
204; slated for U. S. Sen. 258, vote for, 272; clerk of house,
270; judge, 286.

Index. 373
Journal Mo. Coijst. Conv. 1820, see Const. Conv.
Judicial Department, const. 242ff; 341ff.
Judiciary Com. on const. 183.
Jury Trial, const. 348.
Justice, const. 348.
Justices of Peace, const. 343.
Lafayette county, 135n.
Lake Michigan to Miss. River, 78.
Land Grants, Spanish, 11, 113; Lucas, 121, 274.
Land Speculators, 12n.
Lawrence county, pop. 47; relation to Mo. 49; trade outlet, 49;
see Ark. Ter., Petitions, Population.
Laws, for acts relating to La. and Mo., see Mo. Laws Organic.
Lawyer Junto of St. Louis, 106n, 259.
Lawyers, French dislike of, 24; in Mo. Ter. 155f; and merchants,
157f.
Lead Mines, 77, 327.
Leduc, M. P. 121; rep. 268; 273.
Legislative acts of Const. Conv. 176ff.
Legislative Committee of Const. Conv. 183.
Legislative Dept. in Const. 215ff, 330-336.
Legislative Process, const. 333, 338.
Lieutenant Governor, const. 221; 239f; 339.
Lillard, Wm. (Del.) slave owner, 117n; 135n; 150nf; 201; rep.
268.
Lillard county, 288.
Limitations on Legislative Dept. const. 231f.

374 Index.
Lincoln county, 43n; grand jury 1819, 98; pro-slavery del. 118;
el. of del. 131f ; see Const. Conv., Pop.
Lindsey, John, 94.
Linn, Lewis F. 147n.
Little Platte River, 44; 58.
Logan, David, sen. 269.
Logan, James, 288.
Long, Wm. 124n; 129.
Louisiana, cession and sentiment at time of, liff; Fr. and Span
ish title and law, 9; District, 15f; Province, 9ff; State,
168n; Ter. 9-36; see Population.
Lowndes com. of House, 291f.
Lowry, Dr. J. J. 93.
Lucas, John B. C. 95n; 121; 124f; 129; 272.
McArthur, John, 270.
McFarland, Wm. 268.
McFerron, Joseph, (Del.) 150nf; 176f; 180; 191f; author, const.
195ff; rep. 268.
McGirk, Andrew S. (Howard co.) rep. 268; 279; 281; 31 If.
McGirk, Mathias (St. Louis co.) 121; sen. 269; 275f; judge, 286.
Mackay, James, 123n.
McNair, Alexander (Del.) 84; 121fn; 129; 136; 149n; 151nf; 201;
camp, for Gov. 1820, 257ff; 262f; election and first mess.
271, 277, 282; 285n; proc. and mess. 1821, 309f.
Madison county, 43n; see Const. Conv., Pop.
Maine-Missouri, see Mo. Comp.
Mansion House Hotel, 166n.
Marthasville, Mo. pub. dinner 1819, 94.

Index. 375
Masons in Const. Conv. 157f.
Memorials, see Petitions.
Merchants in Const. Conv. 157f.
Messages, Gov. McNair, first, 271; special on const, amend.
1820, 277; veto on salary for leg. 282; proc. 1821, 309;
mess. June 1821, 310.
Mileage, see Gen. Assembly.
Militia, const. 227, 345; 239.
Mine a Burton, 118.
Missouri Boundary, see Boundary; n. w. part known in 1818,
44; s. e. part in controversy 1818, 45.
Missouri Compromise, first 1820, 63ff; opinion of Jefferson, 65;
second 1821, 290-301, text of, 300, receipt of news of in
Mo. 302.
Missouri Constitution, 1820, length, 170; printing of, 173n;
trans, into Fr. 173n; distrib. of, 173n; editions, 173n, 314;
drafting of, 176ff; framing, 182ff; engrossed and adopted,
192; authorship, 193-211; origin and content, 212-253;
presentment to Cong. 291f; text of, 329-354.
Missouri Herald, see Jackson.
Missouri Gazette, (St. Louis) 99nf; lOOff; 106f; for slavery re
striction, 120n, 130; against lawyer junto, 259.
Missouri Hotel, 270.
Missouri Intelligencer (Franklin) 99fn; 104; pro-slav. 12n;
130; 309.
Missouri Laws, Organic, 10; act of Cong. Oct. 31, 1803, 14;
ibid. March 26, 1804, 15; ibid. March 3, 1805, 24ff; ibid.
June 4, 1812, 30ff, 34; ibid. Apr. 29, 1816, 35; ibid. March

376 Index.
6, 1820, 65ff; Mo. Const. 1820, 212-254, 329-359; second
Mo. Comp. March 2, 1821, 300; Proc. of Pres. Monroe,
Aug. 10, 1821, 319.
Missouri Question, see Cong., Mo. Comp., Scott.
Missouri River, as northern bound, for Mo. 40; 48; 58ff; 322.
Missouri Statehood, first petition for, 1817, 37ff; first House
bill for, 38; enabling act, 65; const. 212-253; de facto state,
254-289; finances of, 283ff; see General Assembly, Mo.
Laws, Petitions, Resol.
Missouri Territory, const, hist. 9-36; name, 31.
Monroe, Daniel, 268.
Monroe, Pres. James, Mo. Proc. 1821, 319f.
Montgomery county, 43n; pub. meet. 83, 94; grand jury, 98;
see Const. Conv., Pop.
Moore, Isidore, sen. 269; 275.
Mount Pleasant Baptist Assn. resol. 1819, 91.
Mulattoes, const. 224f ; 335; in Cong. 290-301, 314.
Murphy, Daniel, rep. 268.
Musick, David, rep. 268.
Nelson, Capt. 92.
New Madrid county, 26; 34; demand for inclusion in Mo. 45f,
49, 55; pub. meet. 1819, 90; see Const. Conv., Pop.
New Madrid Strip, see Ark. Ter., Petitions, Public Opinion.
Newport, Mo. for location temp, seat govt. 276.
Newspapers in Mo. character in 1819-20, 99fn; position on slavery
99ff ; extent of, 155; see Editorials, Jackson Missouri Herald,
Missouri Gazette, Missouri Intelligencer, St. Charles Mis
sourian, St. Louis Enquirer.

Index. 311
Northwest Ordinance, 115.
O'FaUon, John, 87n.
Ordinance of Mo. 1820, 79; 176ff; 355ff.
Ordinance of Const. Conv. for pay of delegates, 174f.
Osage Boundary Line, 39; 46; 66.
"Paddy's Wedding," 303.
Palmer, Martin, rep. 268.
Patten, N. Jr., 92n.
Patton, Nathaniel, lOOn.
Peck, Rev. M. 127n.
Pemiscot county, demand for inclusion in Mo. 45.
Penrose, Clement B. 123n.
Permanent Seat of Government, 79; 190; 204; 227; com. on,
288f; 327; const. 346.
Perry, Samuel (Del.) 135n; 150nf; author, const. 195ff; sen.
269.
Perry county, 288.
Petitions, 1804 La. Dist. 17ff; 1809-11, La. Ter. 26ff; Mo. for
Statehood, 37-80; 1817, 37ff, 321ff; first presented to Cong.
38; 1818, 41ff, 55, 324ff; Mo. River Bound, petitions, 1819,
50f, 57ff; Ark. petitions, 1818-19, 51, 60n; Mt. Zion Bap.
Assn. 1819, 64; see Presentments, Resolutions; Cape Girar
deau CO. on const, amend. 297; Madison co. on same, 277.
Pettibone, Rufus, 124f; 129n; judge, 287.
Pettus, Wm. G. 149n; 150nf; secretary const, conv. 167ff;
private sec. to Gov. McNair, 285n.
Pike county, 43; see Const. Conv., Pop.
Platte Purchase, 58.

378 Index.
Poetry, early Missouri, 303.
Politics in pioneer Mo. days, 153ff.
Population, Upper Louisiana, 1804, 11; 1810, 26; Mo. Ter.
1817-18, 42f, 321; slave, 1818, 43, 324, 328; 43n; 1820 by
counties, 69ff; 72n; slave and white, 116.
Potosi, Mo. pub. meet. 1819, 89; for temp, seat govt. 274ff.
Pratte, Bernard (Del.) 121; 129; 150nf; 190; 192n; 201.
Preamble, const. 213f, 329.
Presentments of Grand Juries of Mo. 96-99.
President const, conv. 167n.
Presidential Electors of Mo. 1820, 287f ; 299.
Price, Risdon H. 123; 129; 129n.
Printing, const, conv. 170ff; state, 1820, 285; 1821, 317.
Pro-Slavery, see Anti-Restrictionists, Public Opinion, Slavery.
Public Meetings in Mo., see Petitions, Resol., Toasts, cities etc.
Public Opinion in Missouri, 1803-04 over La. Cession, liff; act
of Cong. Oct. 1803, 14; ibid. March 26, 1804, 16ff, 21ff;
ibid. March 3, 1805, 24; over Mo. R. Boundary petitions,
1819, 57ff; over action of Cong, and slavery, 1819, 81-113;
ibid. 1820, and election of del. 114-134; over Cong, and Mo.
Const. 1820-21, 292ff, 297f, 300f, 304ff; over special sess.
Leg. 1821, 319; see Editorials, Presentments, Resolutions,
and Toasts.
Ralls, Daniel, rep. 268; 273.
Ralls county, 288.
Ramsey, Jonathan (Del.) 150nf ; conv. work, 174, 183, 185, 187n;
author, const. 196ff, 204ff; camp, for lieut. gov. 264f.

Index. 379
Ray, John, (Del.) slaveowner, 117n; 150nf; 179; author, const.
196; rep. 268.
Ray county, 288.
Rector, Stephen, 92n.
Rector, Wm. V. (Del.) 93n; 121; 122n; 129n; 151n; 166n; 171;
176n; 183; 187n; 200; 205; 318.
Reeves, Benj. H. (Del.) 98; 117n; 149n; 150nf; 191; 201; 209.
Relfe, James H. rep. 268.
Religion, of del. 162f ; const. 347.
Representatives, see Leg. Dept; first leg. 1820, 268.
Resolutions, against Cong, action, 1818-19, 82-92; St. Louis
Cir. Crt. 1820, 293; ter. leg. 1818, 326ff.
Restrictionists of slavery in Mo. 121ff; 131f.
Revision of laws, const. 233; 336.
Riddick, Thomas F. (Del.) 129n; 150nf; 167fn; 191fn; author.
const. 195ff; 209; 328.
Roads, public, 78.
Roberts' Amend. 63; resol. 299f.
Rogers, Thomas, rep. 268.
Rollins, James S. 141 ; 209.
Rubottom, Ezekiel, rep. 268.
Rutter, Edmund, rep. 268; 279; 311.
St. Charles county, 26; 34; celebration 1819, 94; grand jury
present. 1819, 97; demand for spec. sess. leg. 1821, 308f;
see Const. Conv., Pop.
St. Charles town, for temp, seat govt. 274ff.
St. Charles Missourian, lOOn.
St. Ferdinand township, pub. meet. 87; 95; 109n.

380 Index.
Ste. Genevieve county, 26; 34; pub. meet. 1819, 89; temp, seat
govt. 275; see Const. Conv., Pop.
St. Louis city, 15; pub. meet. 93, 95ff; receipt news passage
Enab. Act. 114; caucus 121; restrictionist 126f; temp.
seat govt. 275ff.
St. Louis county, 26; 34; pub. meet. 84ff, 87f, 96; cand. for
conv. 120ff; el. del. 128f; el. 1820, 265; resol. 293; demand
for spec. sess. leg. 1821, 308f; see Const. Conv., Pop.
St. Louis Enquirer, 37; 99nff; 30; 148; on const. 260f ; on Cong.
1820-21, 297f.
Salaries, see Mo. Const; effect on 1820 el. 262f, 277.
Saline county, 288.
Salt River country, 70; 288.
Salt Springs, 77; 327.
Schedule, com. on, 191 ; const. 248, 350ff .
Schools, const. 344; see Univ.
Scott, John, (Del.) 38; opposed Mo. R. boundary, 48, 51; in re
Ark. Ter. 54n, boundary, 58, intro. petition, 1819, 62ff;
67; letter on del. appor. 72ff, 77, 107; resol. of approval
of, 86; toasts to, 93f; 136; 140n; 149n; 150nf; 179f;
author, const. 195ff; 204; 209; el. 1820, 264, 27; in Cong.
1820-21, 306ff, 328.
Scripps, George H. 118; 131n.
Seal of the State, const. 241, 340; model of 1820, 285, 289; gov.
priv. seal, 249.
Second Mo. Comp., see Mo. Comp.
Secretary of State, const. 240; salary 285f; 340.
Select committee on const. 184ff.

Index. 381
Senators, const, see Leg. Dept.
Sentiment, see Public Opinion.
Settlers in Mo., from slave-states, 115.
Shannon, William, 288.
Shaw, 94.
Sheriff, const. 247, 340.
Simonds, Nathaniel, 276.
Simpson, Robert, 124f; 129n.
Slavery, in Louisiana Dist. memorial Jan. 1804, 14; petition
Sept. 1804, 18, 110; in Mo. Ter. Talmadge amend. 1819,
53fn; pub. opinion in Mo., 115-134; extent and status of,
116f, 133f; const. 224, 232, 334f; 303; see Benton, 84ffn;
Cong.; Mo. Comp; Pop; Pub. Opinion; Scott.
Smiley, Thomas, rep. 268; 311.
Smith, Gen. T. A. 87n.
Smith, Wm., rep. 268; 276.
Solemn Public Act, opinion of in Mo. 304f; editor. St. L. Enq.
1821, 306; 308; McNair's message on, 310; act. leg. 311ff;
"error," 312ff; legaUty and force of, 316f; text, 360ff.
Spanish land grants, see Land Grants.
Statehood, see Mo. Statehood.
Steamboat, "Independence" 92.
Stevenson, Robert M. rep. 268.
Stewart, Alexander, rep. 268; 270.
Stoddard, Capt. Amos, 15.
Storrs', amend, to Mo. bill, 64; to Foot's resol. 1821, 295.
Strother, Samuel D. rep. 268.
Stuart, Alexander, 123n.

382 Index.
Sullivan, John C. (Del.) 121; 123n; 129n; 135n; 150nf; 200.
Supreme Court, see Judic. Dept.; camp, for judges, 1820, 256ff;
341.
Talbott, James, (Del.) 150nf ; 176n; 200; sen. 269.
Talmadge, amend. 1819, 55; toast to, 94.
Taxation, non-residents, 179ff, 233; state 283ff; 350.
Taylor, toast to, 94.
Teachers in const, conv. 164.
Temporary Seat of Gov. 190; 210; 274ff.
Tennessee const. 86.
Tenure, see Leg. Dept.
Thomas, Judge Richard S. (Del.) 55n; 149nfnf; work in conv.
167f, 176n, 180; draft, const. 183f, 187n; author, const.
196ff, 206; judge 287.
Thomas' amend, to Mo. bill, 63.
Thornton, John, 288.
Toasts, 1819 in Mo. in re to Cong. 92-96.
Todd, David, judge, 287.
Treason, const. 349.
Treasurer, State, const. 241, 336; salary 285.
Treat, Judge Samuel, 316.
Treaty of Cession, 1803, see La.
Trexler, H. A. 116.
Tribunals, inferior, const. 342.
Tucker, Nathaniel B. 166n; judge 287.
U. S. land in Mo., const. 233; 345.
U. S. Senators from Mo. 1820, 256 ; see Barton, Benton.

Index. 383
University of Mo., 79; const. 226, 326, 344; see Education,
Rollins, Scott.
Vansant, Abner, 119f ; 131n.
Veto, const. 338 ; see Messages of Gov.
Viles, Prof. Jonas, 313.
Vincennes, cap. La. Dist. 18.
Walker, J. Hardeman, 55n.
Wallace, Robert, (Del.) slave owner, 117n; 158nf; 176n; 200.
Walton, Henry, rep. 268.
Warner, Jabez, 270.
Washington county, grand jury, 1817, 39; pub. meet. 1819,
89; grand jury, 1819, 99; pro-slav. 118; el. 1820, 131; see
Const. Conv., Pop.
Waters, Joab, rep. from Ste. Gen. 268; 311.
Waters, Richard H. rep. from New Madrid, 268.
Watson, Robert G. 288.
Wayne county 43n; see Const. Conv., Pop.
Western Emigrant, 37.
Western Journal, 37.
White, John B. 288.
White River, 45.
Wilcox, Maj. J. D. 92n.
Whig party, 141, 143.
Williams, Samuel, rep. 268.
Wright, Morgan, rep. 268.
Writs, const. 343.
Young, (?) rep. 311. V

iLJ^^:i^¦^;>^^l^: '!:- ,' •-