Page:History of Southeast Missouri 1912 Volume 1.djvu/296

 236 HISTORY OF SOUTHEAST MISSOURI bill the north had a preponderance in both houses of Congress. That preponderance still maintained so far as the house was concerned. The organization of Alabama and its pending admission, however, threatened to increase the already superior power of the south in the senate. It was this political situation, the de- sire to control Congress, rather than opposi- tion to slaverj' as an institution, that caused the opposition to the organization of Mis- souri. If ]Iissouri and Alabama should both come into the Union as slave states, as was very probable, then the balance of power would be destroyed and the south would have a very great preponderance in the senate. It was determined to prevent this if possible. It was considered almost certain that if the people of Missouri were left free to determine the question of slavery in the state for them- selves that the constitution of the state would permit the existence of the institution. Some way must be accordingly found by which the matter of determining the question could be taken out of the hands of the people and trans- ferred to Congress. It had been suggested, in the case of Alabama, that a provision in the act permitting the organization of the state, require the prohibition of slavery as a condi- tion precedent to its admission. It was ob- jected to this course, however, that when Georgia ceded the territory out of which Ala- bama was subsequently organized it was stip- ulated that no restriction should be placed upon slavery. This was regarded as standing in the way of any attempt to dictate to the people of the state their attitude toward it. Accordingly nothing was said concerning slavery in the act authorizing the admission of Alabama. It was felt, however, that some provision must be made concerning slavery in Missouri. Accordingly, Mr. Tallmadge of New York, moved to amend the bill by inserting the fol- lowing provision: "And provided that the further introduction of slavery or involuntarj' servitude be prohibited, except for pimish- ment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, and that all <;'hildren born within the said state after the admission thereof into the Union shall be free at the age of twenty-five years. ' ' The debate over this amendment was long and bitter. The opponents of the amendment contended that such action was contrary to the action of Congress in the admission of Kentuekj', Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, all of which had been admitted as slave states without such provision; that it violated the treaty entered into with France at the time of the cession of Louisiana, one clause of which guaranteed to the people of that territory, including Missouri, the posses- sion of their property. It was urged that if Congress had respected the provision made by Georgia in ceding Alabama, then it should re- spect the treaty obligations of the government of the United States. It was further urged that such a clause, hampering the free action of the people of a state, was beyond the power of Congress to make, and therefore unconsti- tutional ; that it put a stigma upon the people of Missouri, in that it did not admit them upon equal terms with the other states ; and finall.v, that if the clause were inserted in the state constitution it could be repealed or amended at anj- time by action of the people of Mis- souri. The friends of the amendment contended that the very fact that Congress could admit or reject a state was sufficient evidence that it possessed the power to prescribe the terms of admission ; that the fact that slavery was morally wrong ; that it was a political and economic evil existing only by virtue of local laws, conferred on Congress the right and