Missouri's struggle for statehood, 1804-1821

Front matter

riass

Book

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT

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 existence 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 continuing 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 suggestions and criticisms of a literary character, I beg to acknowledge the kind services of Profs. H. M. Belden, A. H. R. Fairchild 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-

6 Preface.

gestions on several of the early chapters, for the information obtained from his History 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 History of Missouri. 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 Library 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 collections 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 constitution, 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 II. 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 Constitution OF 1820 193

Chapter VIII. Origin and Content of the Constitution 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 Statehood 321

Appendix II. Memorial and Resolutions of Missouri Territorial Legislature, 1818, Petitioning Congress FOR Statehood 324

Appendix III. Missouri Constitution of 1820 and Ordinance of Missouri Constitutional Convention, 1820 329

Appendix IV. Missouri's Solemn Public Act, 1821 .... 360 Index 363

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,

Bates, Edward. From Louis Houck's Hist, of Mo.,\U. \^. 120 Benton, Thomas H. From Louis Houck's Hist, of Mo., HL

268 120

Boundary of Missouri as First Suggested in 1817. From

Houck's Hist, of Mo., L 3 66

Boundary of Missouri as Suggested by the Territorial Legislature in 1818. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., L 5 66

Boundary of Missouri as Adopted by Congress in 1820.

From Houck's Hist, of Mo., L 6 66

Boundary of Missouri with the Platte Purchase Added.

From Houck's Hist, of Mo., L 12 66

Charless, Joseph. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., HL 65 120

Chouteau, Pierre, Jr. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., HL 254 120

Cook, John D. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., HL 266 148

Jones, John Rice. From Houck's Hist, of Mo.,\U.2bl 148

McNair, Alexander. From Houck's Hist, of Mo.,\\\. 253. 120 "Mansion House" Hotel. From Official Manual of Missouri 1913-1914, p. 15, by courtesy of Hon. Cornelius

Roach, Sec. of State 166 '

"Missouri Hotel." Ihid 166

Missouri's Temporary Capitol at St. Charles, Mo., 1821-

Pettus, William G. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., HL 250. . 120

Ramsay, Jonathan. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., HL 263. 148

Reeves, B. H. From Houck's Hist, of Mo.,Ul.2b^ 148

Scott, John. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., \U. 12, 148

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 importance. 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 Fontalnebleau, December 3, 1762, ceded the territory west of the Mississippi to Spain. France ofiQcially advised the director-general of Louisiana of this fact in a letter dated April 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. 19 If; 4 Mo, Reports, p. 380; 10 Mo. Reports, p. 199; Mo. Ter. Laws, 1816. p. 436.

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 separating 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.)

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 jurisdiction over Upper Louisiana.^

At the time of the cession the population of Upper Louisiana was over ten thousand,® of which over one-half were Americans.' 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 Girardeau 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 and 1,320 slaves.

' Ibid., p. 225, states that three-flfths of the population were "English Americans."

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-fifths 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 confederation 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 however quickly they were understood, their advantages were late in being appreciated. See below the account of the French convention of delegates in September, 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: "Without 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 officers." (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 Madrid 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 siu-render, 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 — Report 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 situation 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 concessions 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 benefit 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 fit 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: "Indeed, few of the French, and part of the English Americans only, were at first reconciled to the change, though thoy 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, ruslied 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 government, careful not to impose any burdens on the agricultural part of the community." (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 Rufus 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 demonstrate — 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 sufHcient discernment 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. Dip., 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 Inhabitants, in their native tongue, when the ceremony took place, to cheer the American flag, 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 transferred, without previous knowledge, from the sovereignty of a government and language to which they had been accustomed and fondly attached, and imder 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 encoiu-aging 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.)

Scharff 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 surprising they should have entertained those feelings at being transferred, themselves 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 the officials and soldiery." (Hist. St. Louis, I. 259.)

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 institutions, 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 temporary government for the new district. This act empowered the President of the United States to take possession of Louisiana, 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 communicated 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 one 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 immigrated to Upper Louisiana from their former homes on the east bank of the Mississippi during the latter eighties and the nineties of the 18th century. Cf. also Kaskaskia Records 1778-1790. in III. Hist. Collections. V; especially letter of John Rice 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.

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 government 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 "territory 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. 508ff.

" 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.

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 legislation 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 community 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; Afo. Ter. Laws, pp. 5f.

A large part of this act also dealt with the government of the Territory of Orleans. The inhabitants of Lower Louisiana included in the new "Territory of Orleans" were equally incensed by this act. They drafted a memorial protesting against the division of Louisiana into two parts and the lacii 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." and was communicated to the Senate December 31, 1804. Am. Stale Papers, Misc.. I. 396ff.