The settlement of Illinois, 1778-1830

by Arthur Clinton Boggess

In March, 1819, a slave code was enacted. Any black or mulatto coming into the State was required to file with the clerk of a circuit court a certificate of freedom. Slaves should not be brought into the state for the purpose of emancipation. Resident negroes, other than slaves and indentured servants, must file certificates of freedom. Slaves were to be whipped instead of fined, thirty-nine stripes being the maximum number that might be inflicted. Contracts with slaves were void. Not more than two slaves should meet together without written permission from their masters. Any master emancipating his slaves must give a bond of $1000 per head that such emancipated slaves should not become public charges, failure to give such a bond being punishable by a fine of $200 per head. Colored people must present passes when traveling.[503]

Stringent as was the code of 1819, it was of a type that was common in the slave states. Its passage may have kept some negroes, both free and slave, from coming into the state upon their own initiative without certificates of freedom. From 1810 to 1820 the number of slaves in Illinois increased from 168 to 917, Illinois being the only state north of Mason and Dixon's line having an increase in the number of slaves during the decade, although in the Territory of Missouri, during this time, the number increased from about 3000 to over 10,200. At the same [pg 180] time the number of free blacks in Illinois decreased from about 600 to some 450, while they increased in Indiana from nearly 400 to over 1200. Of the slaves in Illinois in 1820 precisely 500 were in the counties of Gallatin and Randolph, the former being the center of the salt-making industry, and the latter the seat of the early French settlement at Kaskaskia.[504]

Whether the anti-slavery clause of the Ordinance of 1787 freed the slaves of the old French settlers was long a disputed question, and it is certain that a strict construction of the Illinois Constitution of 1818 made further importation of slaves illegal. Many slave-owners passed through southern Illinois to Missouri, because the main road for emigration by land to that territory crossed the Ohio River at Shawneetown. Many of the slaves who produced the large increase in the number of slaves in Missouri from 1810 to 1820 must have gone over this route. In 1820 more than one-seventh of the population of Missouri was slave.[505] The people of Illinois could not fail to see that they were losing a certain class of emigrants—the prosperous slaveholders. The loss became greater as the likelihood of Missouri's admittance as a slave state increased. As early as 1820 there was a rumor of the formation of a party in Illinois to introduce slavery into the state in a legal manner.[506] The next year an editorial in a leading newspaper of Illinois said: “Will the admission of slavery in a new state tend to increase its population?—is a question which has been of late much discussed both within and without this state. It has been contended that its admission would induce the emigration of citizens of states as well where slavery was, as where it [pg 181] was not tolerated—that while it would attract the attention of the wealthy southern planter, it would not deter the industrious northern farmer.” The editor cites Ohio and Kentucky as proof against the above argument. In 1810 Ohio had a population, in round numbers, of 230,700 and Kentucky one of 406,500; in 1820 Ohio had 581,400, while Kentucky had 563,300, giving a difference in favor of Ohio of over 18,000; and an excess of gain during the decade, in favor of Ohio, of 93,847. “We are willing to take into consideration the unsettled titles of land in the last-mentioned state [Kentucky], and admit that in this respect Ohio had a decided advantage—we will therefore deduct the fraction of 93,847, believing it equivalent to the loss of population from this cause—there is still a difference of 100,000.”[507] The editor's figures for 1810 were correct and those for 1820 were approximately so. It is also true, and in line with his argument, that during the same decade Indiana showed an increase from 24,500 to 147,200, while Missouri's increase was from 20,800 to 66,500; the increase in Illinois being between the two in proportion of increase—from 12,282 to 55,162.[508] The passing of the slaveholders to Missouri continued and the discussion of the slavery question became animated.

In the gubernatorial election of 1822 there were four candidates for governor, two being anti-slavery and two pro-slavery in belief. Edward Coles, from Virginia, an anti-slavery man, was elected by a plurality of but a few votes. His election was due to a division in the ranks of the opposite party, as is shown by the fact that the pro-slavery party polled over 5300 votes, while the anti-slavery party polled only some 3300.[509] In his message of December [pg 182] 5, 1822, Governor Coles strongly urged the passage of a law to prevent kidnapping[510]—then a regular trade. This was referred to a select committee which reported as follows: “Your committee have carefully examined the laws upon the subject, and with deep regret announce their incapability of devising a more effectual plan than the one already prescribed by law for the suppression of such infamous crimes. It is believed that the benevolent views of the executive and the benign purposes of the statutes can only be realized by the redoubled diligence of our grand juries and our magistrates, aided by the well-directed support of all just and good men.”[511] The legislature was politically opposed to the governor, and the committee's report sounds like the baldest irony. With the report was presented a scheme for introducing slavery into the state,[512] a scheme which eventually led to the vote of 1824.[513]

The Constitution of Illinois provided that upon the vote of two-thirds of the members of each house of the legislature, the question of calling a convention for the revision of the Constitution should be submitted to the people. For calling a convention only a majority vote from the people was necessary. This method of procedure the pro-slavery party determined upon. The two-thirds in favor of the project could be secured without difficulty in the senate, but in the house the desperate expedient of [pg 183] reconsidering the right of a member to a contested seat and seating his opponent was resorted to.[514] This being done the resolution to submit the question of a constitutional convention to the people was passed by a bare two-thirds vote in each house.[515] Of the eighteen men who voted against the resolution, eleven were natives of southern states, two of New York, two of Connecticut, one of Massachusetts, one of Vermont, and one of Sweden. There were some northern men who voted in favor of the resolution.[516]

The campaign resulting from the passage of the convention resolution was waged for eighteen months with great vigor. Press and pulpit were actively employed.[517] A large anti-slavery society was formed in Morgan county,[518] and it was in all probability one of many such organizations. In August, 1824, came the final vote, and the official count of the votes showed a majority of 1668 against calling a constitutional convention.[519]

It is noteworthy that in this struggle the governor of the state was an anti-slavery southerner; eleven of the eighteen anti-slavery men in the legislature were southern; the pro-slavery party, which polled 1971 more votes than its opponents in 1822, was defeated by 1668 votes in 1824. It is also true that of the leaders in the campaign some of the most noted were southern anti-slavery or northern pro-slavery men.

The history of settlement suggests several explanations for the votes of 1822 and 1824. The legislature which passed the convention resolution had not been chosen with the avowed purpose of doing so. Some designing politicians had such an object in view and secured the election of pro-slavery men by anti-slavery constituents. The number of such cases was not large, but as the resolution passed by the minimum vote they are important.[520] In 1822, however, there was almost without doubt a pro-slavery majority in the state, but it is improbable that there was a two-thirds majority. In the election of 1822, there were 8635 votes cast, while in that of 1824 there were 11,612 votes cast. This great increase indicates a large immigration. Immigration at this time was largely to the northern counties of the state, and it is a point of prime significance that each of the seven northern counties gave large majorities against the calling of the convention, [pg 185] and that without the vote of these seven counties the vote would have been 4523 for a convention and 4408 against a convention, thus changing the decision of the state. This vote of the northern counties can not be explained by an increased immigration from the north, because no such increase to any significant degree is discoverable. The admission of Missouri as a slave state would naturally lead pro-slavery emigrants to go to that state instead of to Illinois. Another event which tended to influence the vote in Illinois was the decision of Indiana against slavery, in the summer of 1823, in the midst of the campaign in Illinois.[521] The unjust action of the Illinois House of Representatives in unseating an anti-convention member was a powerful argument against the pro-slavery party.

In his message to the legislature, on November 16, 1824, Governor Coles said: “In the observations I had the honor to make to the last Legislature, I recommended that provision should be made for the abolition of the remnant of African slavery which still existed in this state. The full discussion of the principles and policy of personal slavery, which has taken place since that period, resulting in its rejection by the decided voice of the people, still more imperiously makes it my duty to call your attention in an especial manner to this subject, and earnestly to entreat you to make just and equitable provision for as speedy an abolition of this remnant of slavery, as may be deemed consistent with the rights and claims of the parties concerned.