[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.of the whole mass of white populationin the country being gradually corrupted by the admixture of the blacks. WhiteMissourians were particularly apprehensive that free blacks might lead a slaverevolt.To reduce this danger, territorial lawmakers had previously attempted todiscourage black freemen from residing in Missouri by limiting their rights making it a crime for former slaves to travel freely or hold gatherings, even foreducational purposes.4 For the same reason, the Gazette, along with many whiteresidents of Missouri, heartily endorsed the American Colonization Society sproposal to remove this  meaner race to the coast of Africa, impracticable asthat scheme might be.5 Like their counterparts in the  butternut states, whiteMissourians were bent upon doing everything possible to keep emancipatedblacks from being  dumped inside their borders.This action taken by the elected delegates gathered in St.Louis showed hownearly universal antipathy toward black freemen was among whites in theUnited States.Regardless of whether they lived in the Northeast, the Southeast,the Old Northwest, the Old Southwest, or the Western frontier, most whiteAmericans plainly despised this group.Wherever they could do so, whites set upbarriers to keep free blacks from settling in their vicinity.Thus far, these legalimpediments at the state level had gone unchallenged by the federal government.1.Foley, Genesis of Missouri, 296.2.Missouri Constitution of 1820, Article III, Section 26: http://www.doprocess.net/lees%20summit/missouri%a0%20constitution%20of%a0%201820.htm.3.In adopting such an inflammatory provision, members of the convention were defyingthe advice of leaders such as acting governor Frederick Bates (brother of Edward).Ina letter published in 1818, he had urged delegates to steer away from controversialissues until after Missouri became a state:  the less we do the better, Bates hadrecommended.See letter of Frederick Bates to the Printer, Missouri Gazette, 30 Oct.1818.4.Greene, et al., Missouri s Black Heritage, 63.This legislation was adopted in 1817.5.See editorial,  Black Colony, Missouri Gazette, 22 Mar.1817.202VI.Racial Strife Crosses the MississippiThis was because of tacit approval of such discriminatory measures in Congressand indifference in the White House and Supreme Court toward the rights offreed slaves and their descendants.At best, free blacks were regarded as second-class citizens and, at worst, as not citizens at all.Exactly what protections wereafforded them under the Constitution would remain unresolved for some time.1In the meanwhile, provisions requiring emancipated slaves to leave states likeVirginia and blocking their entry into ones as diverse as Mississippi and Ohioremained in force.But Missouri s explicit exclusion of free blacks and mulattoes went furtherthan any previous measures.Coming on the heels of the defeat of the Tallmadgeamendment and Congress s subsequent decision to accept Missouri as a newslave state, this amendment enraged antislavery Northerners.Vermont s GeneralAssembly declared that Missouri s efforts to  prevent citizens of the UnitedStates, on account of their origin, color, or features from entering its territorywere  repugnant to a republican government and in direct violation of the con-stitution of the United States. 2 In Washington, Congress renewed its battleover Missouri,  bitter beyond precedent. 3 Northern foes of slavery  lookingfor an excuse to keep Missouri out of the Union  vowed not to accept such an obnoxious provision in a state s basic law.4 But, weary from so much conten-tious arguing, their opposition to admitting Missouri as a slave state wavering,and alarmed by more Southern talk of secession, many of their colleagues wantedto put the matter behind them.5 After more backroom maneuvering, failed reso-lutions, and renewed threats,6 both houses of Congress finally agreed upon a sec-ond Missouri compromise in March.This called for the territory s legislature torevise the constitution so that it guaranteed that subsequent lawmakers would never pass any law preventing any description of persons from going to, and set-tling in, the said state, who now are, or hereafter may become, citizens of anystates in this Union. 7 Otherwise, Missouri would not become a state.1.This issue was not legally settled until the Supreme Court ruled, in the 1857 Dred Scottcase, that blacks were not citizens.2.Resolution of the General Assembly, State of Vermont, 15 Nov.1820, in the Journal of theSenate of the United States, 9 Dec.1820, 52.3.James G.Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield (Norwich, Ct.: Henry Bill,1884), vol.1, 17.4.Rep.William Plumer of New Hampshire wrote to his father on Feb.2, 1821, that agroup of 20 Northern congressmen had met to plan their course of action: allremained steadfastly opposed to accepting this discriminatory clause in Missouri sconstitution.Plumer, Missouri Compromises, 29.5.See letter of William Plumer, Jr.to William Plumer, Sr., 14 Dec.1820.Cf.letter of 2 Feb.1821.Ibid., 24, 29.6. Many of the southern people, & particularly the Virginians, talk coolly & deliberatelyof a separation of the States, or at least of an attempt to deprive the General Govern-ment of some portion of its powers. Letter of William Plumer, Jr.to William Plumer,Sr., 25 Feb.1821.Plumer, Missouri Compromises, 41.203Race to the FrontierFaced with this ultimatum, the territory s legislators convened a special ses-sion in June 1821.Holding their noses, they backed off and partially agreed toabide by Congress s wishes.But they did so defiantly, camouflaging their con-tempt for Washington in convoluted legal language.The lawmakers acknowl-edged the Constitution as the  supreme law of the land, while reaffirming thatthe federal government had no right to  annex any condition to the admission ofthis state into the Federal Union. The delegates refused to alter the original ver-sion of the constitution and only consented not to pass any future laws limitingthe rights of free blacks and mulattoes.Missouri s House of Representativespassed this resolution, 36-6  with two dissenting members going on record asbitterly opposed to this forced compliance on states rights grounds.How stub-bornly opposed this body remained to Washington s intervention is evident inthe report of the committee tasked with settling this matter [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]