Thirty Years' View (Vol. 1 of 2) / or, A History of the Working of the American Government for Thirty Years, from 1820 to 1850

by Thomas Hart Benton

Mr. Alexander Porter, of Louisiana, would vote against the admission, on account of the "revolutionary" proceedings of the people in the formation of their constitution, without a previous act of Congress. It is believed that Mr. Clay voted upon the same ground. There were but six votes against the admission; namely: Mr. Clay, Mr. Knight of Rhode Island, Mr. Porter, Mr. Prentiss, Mr. Robbins of Rhode Island, and Mr. Swift. It is believed that Mr. Robbins and Mr. Knight voted on the same ground with Mr. Clay and Mr. Porter. So, the bill was easily passed, and the two bills went together to the House of Representatives, where they gave rise to proceedings, the interest of which still survives, and a knowledge of which, therefore, becomes necessary. The two bills were made the special order for the same day, Wednesday, the 8th of June, Congress being to adjourn on the 4th of July; and the Michigan bill having priority on the calendar, as it had first passed the Senate. Mr. Wise, of Virginia, on the announcement of the Michigan bill, from the chair, as the business before the House, moved to postpone its consideration until the ensuing Monday, in order to proceed with the Arkansas bill. Mr. Thomas, of Maryland, objected to the motion, and said:

"He would call the attention of the House to the position of the two bills on the Speaker's table, and endeavor to show that this postponement is entirely unnecessary. These bills are from the Senate. By the rules of this House, two, I may say three, questions will arise, to be decided before they can become a law, so far as this House is concerned. We must first order each of these bills to be read a third time; the next question then will be, when shall the bill be read a third time? And the last question to be decided will be, shall the bill pass? Why, then, should Southern men now make an effort to give precedence to the bill for the admission of Arkansas into the Union? If they manifest distrust, must we not expect that fears will be entertained by Northern members, that unreasonable opposition will be made to the admission of Michigan? Let us proceed harmoniously, until we find that our harmony must be interrupted. We shall lose nothing by so doing. If a majority of the House be in favor of reading a third time the Michigan bill, they will order it to be done. After that vote has been taken, we can refuse to read the bill a third time, go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, then consider the Arkansas bill, report it to the House, order it to be read a third time, and in this order proceed to read them each a third time, if a majority of the House be in favor of that proceeding. Let it not be said that Southern men may be taken by surprise, if the proceeding here respectfully recommended be adopted. If the friends of Arkansas are sufficiently numerous to carry now the motion to postpone, they can arrest at any time the action of the House on the Michigan bill, until clear undubitable indications have been given that the Missouri compromise is not to be disregarded."

These latter words of Mr. Thomas revealed the point of jealousy between some Southern and Northern members, and brought the observance of the Missouri compromise fully into view, as a question to be tried. Mr. Wise, after some remarks, modified his motion by moving to refer both bills to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, with instructions to incorporate the two bills into one bill. Mr. Patton, of Virginia, opposed the latter motion, and gave his reasons at length against it. If his colleague would so modify his motion as to move to refer both bills to the Committee of the Whole House, without the instructions, he would vote for it. Mr. Bouldin, of Virginia, successor to Mr. Randolph, said:

"He agreed with his colleague [Mr. Patton] in a fact too plain for any to overlook, that both bills must be acted on separately, and that one must have the preference in point of time. Michigan had it at that time—he was willing it should hold it. His colleague [Mr. Patton] seemed to think that in the incipient steps in relation to this bill, it would be well enough to suffer Michigan to hold her present position; but that, before the final passage of the bill, it would be well to require of the House (or rather of the non-slaveholding portion of the Union) to give some unequivocal guaranty to the South that no difficulty would be raised as to the reception of Arkansas in regard to negro slavery. Mr. B. was willing to go on with the bill for the admission of Michigan. He had the most implicit confidence in the House, particularly alluding to the non-slaveholding part of the Union, that no serious difficulty would be made as to the admission of Arkansas in regard to negro slavery. If there were any serious difficulties to be raised in the House to the admission of Arkansas, upon the ground of negro slavery, he wished immediate notice of it. If his confidence was misplaced, he wished to be corrected as soon and as certainly as possible. If there really was any intention in the House of putting the South under any difficulty, restraint, limit, any shackle or embarrassment on the South on account of negro slavery (some gentlemen said slavery, but he said negro slavery), he wished to know it. If there were any individuals having such feeling, he wished to know them; he wished to hear their names upon yeas and nays. If there were a majority, he should act promptly, decisively, immediately upon it, and had no doubt all the South would do the same. There might be some question as to the claim of non-slaveholding States to stop the progress of Southern habits and Southern influence Northward. As to Arkansas, there could be no question; and if seriously pressed, such claims could leave no doubt on the minds of the South as to the object of those who pressed them, or the course to be pursued by them. Such a stand being taken by the non-slaveholding States, it would make little difference whether Michigan was in or out of this Union. He said he would sit down, again assuring the House, and the gentlemen particularly from the non-slaveholding States, of his entire confidence that no such thing would be seriously attempted by any considerable numbers of this House."

Mr. Lewis, of Worth Carolina, took decided ground in favor of giving the Arkansas bill the priority of decision; and expressed himself thus:

"He should vote for the proposition of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wise] to lay the bill for the admission of Michigan into the Union on the table, until the bill for the admission of Arkansas should be first passed. He should do this, for the obvious reason that there were dangers, he would not say how great, which beset Arkansas, and which did not beset Michigan. The question of slavery could be moved as a condition for the admission of Arkansas, and it could not as a condition to the admission of Michigan. I look upon the Arkansas question as therefore the weaker of the two, and for that reason I would give it precedence. Besides, upon the delicate question which may be involved in the admission of Arkansas, we may be the weaker party in this House. For that reason, if gentlemen mean to offer no obstructions to the admission of Arkansas, let them give the assurance by helping the weaker party through with the weaker question. We of the South cannot, and will not, as I pledge myself, offer any objections to the domestic institutions of Michigan with regard to slavery. Can any gentleman make the same pledge that no such proposition shall come from the North? Besides, the two bills are not now on an equal footing. The bill for the admission of Arkansas must be sent to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The bill for the admission of Michigan need not necessarily go to that committee. It will therefore pass in perfect safety, while we shall be left to get Arkansas along, through the tedious stages of commitment, as well as we can. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Sutherland] says that these two bills will be hostages for the safety of each other. Not, sir, if you pass the stronger bill in advance of the weaker. Besides, the North want no hostages on this subject. Their institutions cannot be attacked. We of the South want a hostage, to protect us on a delicate question; and the effect of giving precedence to the Michigan bill is to deprive us of that hostage."

Mr. Cushing, of Massachusetts, addressed the committee at length on the subject, of which only the leading passages can be given. He said:

"The House has now continued in session for the space of eighteen or nineteen hours, without any interval of refreshment or rest. It is impossible to mistake the intentions of the ruling majority. I see clearly that the committee is resolved to sit out the debate on these important bills for the admission of Michigan and Arkansas into the Union. This, it is apparent, the majority have the power as well as the right to do. Whether it be just and reasonable, is another question. I shall not quarrel, however, with the avowed will of the House. It has done me the favor to hear me with patience on other occasions; and I cannot render it the unfit return of trespassing on its indulgence at this unseasonable hour, nor seek to defeat its purposes by speaking against time. But having been charged with sundry memorials from citizens of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, remonstrating against that clause in the constitution of Arkansas which relates to the subject of slavery, I should be recreant to the trust they have reposed in me, if I suffered the bill for the admission of Arkansas to pass without a word of protestation. The extraordinary circumstances under which I rise to address the committee impel me to brevity and succinctness; but they would afford me no justification for a passive acquiescence in the admission of Arkansas into the Union, with all the sins of its constitution upon its head.

"The constitution of Arkansas, as communicated to Congress in the memorial of the people of that Territory, praying to be admitted into the Union, contains the following clause: 'The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of the owners. They shall have no power to prevent emigrants to this State from bringing with them such persons as are deemed slaves by the laws of any one of the United States.' This provision of the constitution of Arkansas is condemned by those whom I represent on this occasion as anti-republican, as wrong on general principles of civil polity, and as unjust to the inhabitants of the non-slaveholding States. They object to it as being, in effect, a provision to render slavery perpetual in the new State of Arkansas. I concur in reprobating such a clause. The legislature of Arkansas is forbidden to emancipate the slaves within its jurisdiction, even though it should be ready to indemnify fully their owners. It is forbidden to exclude slaves from being imported into the State. I cannot, by any vote of mine, ratify or sanction a constitution of government which undertakes in this way to foreclose in advance the progress of civilization and of liberty for ever. In order to do justice to the unchangeable opinions of the North, without, in any respect, invading the rights, real or supposed, of the South, my colleague [Mr. Adams], the vigilant eye of whose unsleeping mind there is nothing which escapes, has moved an amendment of the bill for the admission of Arkansas into the Union, so that, if the amendment be adopted, the bill would read as follows: 'The State of Arkansas is admitted into the Union upon the express condition that the people of the said State shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands within the said State, nor shall they levy a tax on any of the lands of the United States within the said State; and nothing in this act shall be construed as an assent by Congress [to the article in the constitution of the said State relating to slavery and to the emancipation of the slaves, or] to all or to any of the propositions contained in the ordinance of the said convention of the people of Arkansas, nor to deprive the said State of Arkansas of the same grants, subject to the same restrictions, which were made to the State of Missouri.' This amendment is, according to my judgment, reasonable and proper in itself, and the very least that any member from the North can propose in vindication of the opinions and principles of himself and his constituents.

"It is opposed, however, by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wise], with his accustomed vigor and ability. He alleges considerations adverse to the motion. He interrogates the friends of the proposed amendment in regard to its force, effect, and purposes, in terms which seem to challenge response; or which, at any rate, if not distinctly and promptly met, would leave the objections which those interrogatories impliedly convey, to be taken as confessed and admitted by our significant silence. What may be the opinions of Martin Van Buren as to this particular bill, what his conduct formerly in reference to a similar case, is a point concerning which I can have no controversy with the gentleman from Virginia. I look only to the merits of the question before the committee. There is involved in it a principle which I regard as immeasurably more important than the opinion of any individual in this nation, however high his present situation or his possible destiny—the great principle of constitutional freedom. The gentleman from Virginia, who, I cheerfully admit, is always frank and honorable in his course upon this floor, has just declared that, as a Southern man, he had felt it to be his duty to come forward and take a stand in behalf of an institution of the South. That institution is slavery. In like manner, I feel it to be my duty, as a Northern man, to take a counter stand in conservation of one among the dearest of the institutions of the North. This institution is liberty. It is not to assail slavery, but to defend liberty, that I speak. It is demanded of us, Do you seek to impose restrictions on Arkansas, in violation of the compromise under which Missouri entered the Union? I might content myself with replying that the State of Massachusetts was not a party to that compromise. She never directly or indirectly assented to it. Most of her Representatives in Congress voted against it. Those of her Representatives who, regarding that compromise in the light of an act of conciliation important to the general interests of the Union, voted for it, were disavowed and denounced at home, and were stigmatized even here, by a Southern member, as over-compliant towards the exactingness of the South. On the first introduction of this subject to the notice of the House, the gentleman from Virginia made a declaration, which I particularly noticed at the time, for the purpose of having the tenor of the declaration distinctly understood by the House and by the country. The gentleman gave it to be known that, if members from the North held themselves not engaged by the terms of the compromise under which Missouri entered into the Union, neither would members from the South hold themselves engaged thereby; and that, if we sought to impose restrictions affecting slave property on the one hand, they might be impelled, on the other hand, to introduce slavery into the heart of the North. I heard the suggestion with the feelings natural to one born and bred in a land of equality and freedom. I took occasion to protest, in the surprised impulse of the moment, against the idea of putting restrictions on liberty in one quarter of the Union, in retaliation of the attempt to limit the spread of slavery in another quarter. I held up to view the inconsistency and inconsequence of uttering the warmest eulogiums on freedom one day, of pouring out aspirations that the spirit of liberty might pervade the universe, and at another time threatening the North with the establishment of Slavery within its borders, if a Northern member should deprecate the legal perpetuation of slavery in a proposed new State of the West. It did not fall within the rules of pertinent debate to pursue the subject at that time; and I have but a single idea to present now, in addition to what I then observed. It is not possible for me to judge whether the gentleman from Virginia, and any of his friends or fellow-citizens at the South, deliberately and soberly cherish the extraordinary purpose which his language implied. I trust it was but a hasty thought, struck out in the ardor of debate. To introduce slavery into the heart of the North? Vain idea! Invasion, pestilence, civil war, may conspire to exterminate the eight millions of free spirits who now dwell there. This, in the long lapse of ages incalculable, is possible to happen. You may raze to the earth the thronged cities, the industrious villages, the peaceful hamlets of the North. You may lay waste its fertile valleys and verdant hill-sides. You may plant its very soil with salt, and consign it to everlasting desolation. You may transform its beautiful fields into a desert as bare as the blank face of the sands of Sahara. You may reach the realization of the infernal boast with which Attila the Hun marched his barbaric hosts into Italy, demolishing whatever there is of civilization or prosperity in the happy dwellings of the North, and reducing their very substance to powder, so that a squadron of cavalry shall gallop over the site of populous cities, unimpeded as this wild steeds on the savannas of the West. All this you may do: it is within the bounds of physical possibility. But I solemnly assure every gentleman within the sound of my voice, I proclaim to the country and to the world, that, until all this be fully accomplished to the uttermost extremity of the letter, you cannot, you shall not, introduce slavery into the heart of the North."

A point of order being raised whether the two bills were not required by a rule of the House to go before the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker, Mr. Polk, decided in the affirmative—the Arkansas bill, upon the ground of containing an appropriation for the salary of judges; and that of Michigan because it provided for judges, which involved a necessity for an appropriation. The two bills then went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speight, of North Carolina, in the chair. Many members spoke, and much of the speaking related to the boundaries of Michigan, and especially the line between herself and the State of Ohio—to which no surviving interest attaches. The debate, therefore, will only be pursued as it presents points of present and future interest. These may be assumed under three heads: 1. The formation of constitutions without the previous assent of Congress: and this was applicable to both States. 2. The right of aliens to vote before naturalization. 3. The right of Arkansas to be admitted with slavery by virtue of the rights of a State,—by virtue of the third article of the treaty which ceded Louisiana to the United States—and by virtue of the Missouri compromise. On these points, Mr. Hamer, of Ohio, spoke thus:

"One of the principal objections urged against their admission at this time is, that their proceedings have been lawless and revolutionary; and that, for the example's sake, if for no other reason, we should reject their application, and force them to go back and do all their work over again. I cannot assent to this proposition. Two ways are open to every territory that desires to emerge from its dependent condition and become a State. It may either petition Congress for leave to form a State constitution, and, when that permission is given, proceed to form it, and present the new State constitution for our approbation; or they may meet, in the first instance, form the constitution, and offer it for our approval. There is no impropriety in either mode. It is optional with Congress, at last, to admit the State or not, as may be thought expedient. If they wish to admit her, they can do it by two acts of Congress; one to authorize the formation of a constitution, and the other to approve of it when made; or by one act allowing the prayer of the petitioners to become a State, and approving of their constitution at the same time. This latter course is the one adopted in the present case. There is nothing disrespectful in it. Indeed, there is much to justify the Territory in its proceeding. Year after year they petitioned for leave to form a constitution, and it was refused, or their application was treated with neglect. Wearied with repeated instances of this treatment, they have formed a constitution, brought it to us, and asked us to sanction it, and admit them into the Union. We have the authority to do this; and if their constitution is republican, we ought to do it. There is no weight in this objection, and I will dismiss it without further remark. Another objection is, that aliens have aided in making this constitution, and are allowed the right of suffrage in all elections by the provisions it contains. As to the first point, it is sufficient to say that all the new States northwest of the Ohio formed their constitutions precisely in the same way. The ordinance of 1787 does not require sixty thousand citizens of the United States to be resident within the limits of a new State, in order to authorize a constitution and admission into the Union. It requires that number of 'free inhabitants;' and the alien who resides there, if he be a 'free inhabitant,' is entitled to vote in the election of delegates to the convention; and afterwards in deciding whether the people will accept the constitution formed by their convention. Such has been the construction and practice in all the country north of the Ohio; and as the last census shows that there are but a few hundreds of aliens in Michigan, it would be hard to set aside their constitution, because some of these may have participated in its formation. It would be unjust to do so, if we had the power; but we have no authority to do it; for if we regard the ordinance as of any validity, it allows all 'free inhabitants' to vote in framing the State governments which are to be created within the sphere of its influence. We will now turn to the remaining point in this objection, and we shall see that it has no more force in it than the other.

"The constitution allows all white male citizens over twenty-one years of age, having resided six months in Michigan, to vote at all elections; and every white male inhabitant residing in the State at the time of signing the constitution is allowed the same privilege. These provisions undoubtedly confer on aliens the right of suffrage; and it is contended that they are in violation of the constitution of the United States. That instrument declares that 'new States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;' that 'the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government;' and that 'the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.' The ordinance of 1787 provides that the constitution to be formed northwest of the Ohio 'shall be republican.'

"It is an error not very uncommon to suppose that the right of suffrage is inseparably connected with the privilege of citizenship. A slight investigation of the subject will prove that this is not so. The privileges are totally distinct. A State cannot make an American citizen who, under the constitution of the United States shall be entitled to the rights of citizenship throughout the Union. The power belongs to the federal government. We pass all the naturalization laws, by which aliens are transformed into citizens. We do so under the constitution of the United States, conceding to us this authority. But, on the other hand, we have no control over the right of suffrage in the different States. That belongs exclusively to State legislation and State authority. It varies in almost all the States; and yet who ever supposed that Congress could interfere to change the rules adopted by the people in regard to it? No one, I presume. Why then attempt to control it here? Other States have adopted the same provisions. Look at the constitutions of Ohio and other new States, and you will find that they require residence only, and not citizenship, to enable a man to vote. Each State can confer this right upon all persons within her limits. It gives them no rights beyond the limits of the State. It cannot make them citizens, for that would violate the naturalization laws; or, rather, it would render them nugatory. It cannot give them a right to vote in any other State, for that would infringe upon the authority of such State to regulate its own affairs. It simply confers the right of aiding in the choice of public officers whilst the alien remains in the State; it does not make him a citizen; nor is it of the slightest advantage to him beyond the boundaries of Michigan."