noteworthy resolution is the seventh, in which the Missouri
Gazette was not mentioned with the other Missouri newspapers
that were requested to print the resolutions of this meeting.
At a meeting of the citizens of New Madrid county on Sep-
tember 14, 1819, a set of six resolutions similar to those of Ste.
Genevieve county was adopted. ^^ The third resolution adopted
at New Madrid is the most noteworthy of all, although it con-
tains no new declaration. Its language is as follows: "Re-
solved, that we believe it to be a part of our absolute rights
to form such a constitution for the government of our state as
we shall deem proper, (provided the same be republican) with-
out any control from the general government, or subject to any
conditions imposed by them." These citizens viewed "with
regret and astonishment the assumption of authority on the
part of Congress to dictate" to them "in matters of internal
policy," and declared that they would "be admitted into the
Union on an equal standing or not at all." The Missouri
Gazette is again omitted from the list of newspapers that were
requested to publish these resolutions.
The last public meeting held in Missouri in 1819 which
was convened expressly for the purpose of protesting against
the attempted restriction of Congress, was in Cape Girardeau
county. A notice of such a meeting to be held in Jackson,
Missouri, on September 18th, is set forth in the Jackson Herald
of September 4, 1819. Its purpose was to consider "the state
of the county^^ and the restrictions attempted to be laid upon
the future state of Missouri by the last Congress," etc. After
>' Mo. Jntell., Novi'inlxT r,, lsi<); Jucksan Ihrald, Srpti'inbiT IS. ISll). The
rcisolutions are Kivj'n in full in these two papers but are not copied hero owing to
the fact tliat tiiey include nothinK new in the way of either argument or protest.
»• Th(! author's notes on this (juotation contain the abbreviation "Co."; it
Is posslbh; tliat this word is "country" and not "county."
Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 91
a careful examination of the files of the Jackson Herald we
failed to find an account of the proceedings of this meeting.
Of great interest and value are the declarations and protests
that the Mount Pleasant Baptist Association adopted at its
meeting at Mount Zion, Howard county, on September 11-13,
1819. These declarations were addressed "To the Senate and
House of Representatives of the United States of America, in
Congress Assembled," and were signed by Edward Turner as
moderator and Geo. Stapleton as clerk. ^^ The Boone's Lick
people protested against the restriction of slavery in Missouri
by Congress, and declared it not only violated the constitution
and cession of treaty, but also worked a hardship on the slaves.
They said that "altho with Washington, Jefferson, & every
other person," they regretted "the existence of slavery at all,"
and although they felt it their "duty to alleviate the situation
of the unfortunate beings who" were its subjects among them;
and that although they looked "forward to the time when a
happy emancipation" could "be effected, consistent with the
principles of safety and justice," still they thought that the
constitution and treaty of cession gave Missouri the right to a
free admission without restriction. They also declared that
they maintained that their right to slaves was "secured by the
treaty of cession," and that "the question of slavery" was one
which belonged exclusively to the state to decide.^°
I'iVfo. Intel!., October 1, 1819; Niles' Register, XVII. 200f.
20 "The constitution does not admit slaves to be freemen: i[t] does admit
them to be property, and guarantees to the master an ownership, which his fellow-
citizens living in another state holding other principles cannot legislate from him;
and as under the constitution, a sister state cannot emancipate those slaves who
flee to its jurisdiction, and as the power is not expressly delegated to congress,
they cannot emancipate a slave, for the right is reserved to the people. And if
they cannot emancipate a slave in a state, and it be lawful to hold slaves in this
territory, congress neither have the right to emancipate our slaves whilst we live
under a territorial form, nor under a state government, for by the treaty of ces-
sion, congress are not only bound to admit us into the union, but are bound to
protect us in the free enjoyment of our liberty and property — and therefore, not
only our rights to admission into the union, but our right to hold slaves is secured
by the treaty of cession, which is ratified by the President and Senate, and also
by several acts of congress."
"And believing that the policy proposed in the restriction will not only cause
jealousy, foment discord, and shake the foundation of our government, but by
confining them [the slaves] to one small district, will increase the task, augment
92 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
It is worth noticing that had this association been as pro-
slavery in sentiment as it professed to be anti-slavery, it could
hardly have adopted a stronger set of resolutions favoring that
institution than it did. These resolutions could scarcely have
been welcomed in the anti-slavery section of the Nation as
showing a sentiment in Missouri that favored slavery restriction,
unless extracts were quoted and not the entire document.
Closely related to the resolutions of public meetings in
Missouri in 1819 as showing the sentiment here over the at-
tempted restriction by Congress, are some of the toasts drunk
at dinners and celebrations in the proposed State. Those
toasts that bear on the questions of statehood and slavery reflect
public opinion on these subjects and should be carefully con-
sidered for the light they throw on this study.
On May 29, 1819, the citizens of Franklin, Howard county,
Missouri, gave a public dinner to Captain Nelson in honor of
the arrival of the steamboat "Independence." ^^ Many toasts
were drunk at this dinner and one of the speakers, General Duff
Green, was later elected a delegate from Howard county to the
constitutional convention. Following are several of these
toasts: both their number and language show how concerned
were the banqueters over statehood and related subjects.
"The Missouri Territory — Desirous to be numbered with the States in con-
stitutional principles — but determined never to submit to congressional usur-
pation."
"By Gen. D. Green — The Union — it is dear to us; but liberty is dearer."
"By Stephen Rector, Esq. — may the Missourians defend their rights, if
necessary, even at the expense of blood, against the unprecedented restriction
which was attempted to be imposed on them by the Congress of the V. States."
"By N. Patten, Jr. — The Mis.souri territory — its future prosperity and
greatness cannot be checked by the caprice by a few men in Congress, while it
possesses a soil of inexhaustil)le fertility, abundant resources, and a body of in-
telligent, enterprising, independent freemen."
"By Maj. J. D. Wilcox — The citizens of Missouri — may they never become
a member of the Union under the restriction relative to slavery."
the pains and rivet tlie chains of the slaves, we warn you in tli(> name of luimanity
itself to beware."
"Th(! tiin»! has arrived when it is possibli* to admit us into tlu> union — we have
all till! means necessary for a state government. And believing \ho ((uestion of
slavery is one wiiieli belongs exclusively to the state to deslde [sic\ on. we, on
b(!half of ourselves, our fellow citizens, and of the most solemn faith of the nation,
<'laim admission into the union on tlie principles of (lie Federal Conslilutioti — on
an e(iual footing wKli tlie other states."
" Mo. Inlell., .Juno 4, 1819. This steamboat arrived at Franklin on May
28th and holds the honor of being the llrst steamboat to make the run up the
Ml.ssourl Ulver.
Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 93
At a dinner given on a like occasion at Chariton, Howard
county, Missouri, on June 1st, at which Major J. S. Findlay
presided and Colonel D. Green was vice-president,^^ the fol-
lowing toasts were drunk:
"The Missouri Territory — if not 'embarassed by too much regulation,' it
will soon form a distinguished member of the Union."
"The people of Missouri — Keen to discern their rights, and firm to main-
tain them; they acknowledge no arbitrary right of restriction in the formation
of their constitution."
"By Capt. R. M. Desha, of the Marine corps. The Independent Missourians
— may they always reject any improper, unconstitutional restrictions imposed
upon them by the national legislature."
At a public dinner given in St. Louis on June 10th, at which
the principal leaders of the day wxre present, the following
toasts were drunk.^^
"The members of the late Congress who supported the constitutional rights of
the Territory of Missouri."
"Mr. Scott, the Missouri Delegate in Congress — He spoke our sentiments
in defence of Missoiu-i State rights."
The Future State of Missouri — Equal in sovereignty to the original states,
or — nothing —
Repeated cheerings — music.
Bonaparte's march — reiterated discharges of artillery" etc.
It was at the various Fourth of July celebrations held on
July 5th, 1819, that the largest number of toasts on this subject
were set forth by the press. In Howard county a large cele-
bration was held at Franklin and of the sixteen set toasts and
the twenty-two volunteer toasts, one-half related to the Mis-
souri statehood bill.^^ One of the former was:
"The People of Missouri — keen to discern their rights, and vigorous in the
defence of them."
Several of the latter were:
"By Doct. J. J. Lowry — The People of the Missouri Territory; may they
be as firm in resisting domestic usurpation; as they have been in repelling foreign
violence."
"By L. W. Boggs, Esq. — The Hon. John Scott, our Delegate to Congress;
he has supported our rights; we will support him."
"By Maj. Richard Gentry — Talmadge and Taylor — a dark room and straight
jackets."
"By Maj. T. Berry — The people of the Western and Southern States; they
ought to view with jealousy the sinister designs of the Eastern states."
t^ Mo. Intell., June 11, 1819. Both Findlay and Green were later elected
delegates from Howard county.
" St. Louis Enq., June 23, 1819. General Rector was president of the day
and was assisted by Colonel Chouteau, Major Christy, and Colonel Benton.
" Mo. Intel!.. July 16, 1819.
94 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
In Montgomery county the celebration was held at Marthas-
ville, and the toasts given were similar to the foregoing.-^ In
St. Charles several celebrations were held which were noticed
by the press, and the Missouri statehood question was prom-
inently set forth in the toasts given. ^^
In St. Louis county at least three celebrations were held:
two in the town of St. Louis; one in Saint Ferdinand township.
" St. Louis Enq., July 14, 1819. Following are a few of the toasts given at
this celebration :
"The members of the late Congress — "Who supported the constitution of the
United States, and their treaty with France, in the discussion of the Missouri
state Bill."
"Mr. John Scott — Ovu" member in congress, he supported the rights of his
constituents with a manly dignity in the last session of Congress."
"The people of Missouri — They want no Congressional provision in forming
their constitution, they will provide for themselves."
"Messrs. Shaw and Holmes — Two Yankee republicans, they deserve well
of their country, may they reform the apostate politicians of the north."
"Messrs. Talmadge and Taylor — Politically insane, may the ne.xt Congress
"appoint them a dark room, a straight waistcoat and a thin water gruel diet."
"The Sovereignty of the State — May seventy-eight men. inimical to it,
clothed with the authority of the people, never meet again in Congress Hall."
"The Citizens of our Mother States — May they not be deterred from emi-
gration to this land of Liberty and Plenty, in consequence of those unconstitu-
tional restrictions attempted to be imposed on us in the late Congress, nor want
confidence in our firmness and integrity to resist such outrages upon our rights
and privileges."
"The Fair of Missouri — May they take none to their arms, nor grace any
with their charms but those who defend the rights of Missouri."
**St. Louis Enq., July 21, 1819; Mo. Gaz., July 14, 28, 1819. Following is
a copy of one of these meetings:
"Monroe. July 5th, 1819.
Mr. Charlcss.
As a writer stiling himself "A farmer of St. Charles county," has said
so much about the political sentiments of that people; I liere send you three
toasts, which were drank and cordially cheered by a number of respectable citi-
zens of that county, at a celebration of the 4th instant.
1st. Tlie Senate of the U. States, magnanimous and great — They frowned
on the violence of the lower house, and arrested them, when charging over tl:3
pales of the constitution to seize on the rights of Mis.souri.
2d. The honoral)le Henry Clay, esq., speaker of the House of Representa-
tives. — Firm and unshaken h<^ arose against the majority, and pointed out to them
the Inconsistency of tin-ir attempting to h'gislate away tlu* rights of any part
of the community.
.'id. The territory of Missouri — wliose rights have been st) wantonly as-
sailed. — May her grlcrvances be redressed, and wlien seated among the sister
states, may she- forget the; ai)us(.' tlicy liave otTered her.
Voiu's resp(«ct fully,
JOHN LINDSEY."
Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 95
One of the St. Louis celebrations was held at "Lucas' spring"
and two of the toasts given were:^^
"The United States — they are the protectors of the territories — their natural
friends — without distrust or jealousy we expect from them a due regard to our
rights."
"Our neighbor, the state of Illinois — homogeneous in its population, it has
not been compelled to compromise or sport with the principles of justice."
At the Other celebration in the town of St. Louis, Colonel
Auguste Chouteau was president, and several of the toasts
given were: ^^
"The Next Congress — A sacred regard for the Constitution in preference to
measures of supposed expediency, will ensure to them the confidence of the
American people." — "Nineteen cheers. Yankee Doodle (music)."
"The Territory of Missouri — With a population of near 100,000 souls, demands
her right to be admitted into the union, on an equal footing with the original
states." — "Nineteen cheers — 'Scott's o'er the border' "
The toasts given at the celebration in Saint Ferdinand
township reflect quite a different sentiment to the public meet-
ing held there on June 5, 1819.'-^ Following are several of the
toasts given:
"The Constitution of the United States — A safe guard to our Liberty."
"Thirteen cheers."
"The Territory of Missouri — May she be admitted into the Union on an equal
footing with the original States, or not received in any other way." — "Drank
standing up. — Twenty-two cheers."
Later in the month of July, 1819, a public dinner was given
at Franklin, Howard county, "to the officers attached to the
expedition destined for the Yellow Stone." Tw^o of the toasts
drunk were:^**
"The Territory of Missouri — to yield to a restriction or condition of what-
ever nature at the will of Congress, would be parting with an attribute of sover-
eignty."
"The citizens of the Missoviri territory; a population who understand their
rights, and know how to maintain them."
" Mo. Gaz., July 7, 1819. The springs were owned by Judge John B. C.
Lucas, and the meeting held there was a rival of the Chouteau gathering of that
day. It does not seem to have been so well attended as the other meeting, and
it was not so strong in its protests against Congress. The reference to the homo-
geneous character of Illinois' population was a veiled attempt to make prominent
the supposed divided or heterogeneous character of Missouri's population.
^^ Mo. Gaz., July 14, 1819; St. Louis Enq., July 14, 1819. These two toasts
received the largest number of cheers.
'^St. Louis Enq., July 21, 1819.
'» Mo. IntelL, July 30, 1819. The dinner was given on the thirteenth of
July.
96 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
The last celebration of this character, recorded by the press,
prior to the passage of the Enabling Act, was by the Irish of
St. Louis on March 17, 1820.^^ One of the toasts drunk was:
"The Missouri Territory — Her entitled rank among the states of the union,
and a constitution of her own choice."
Excepting the resolutions adopted at the various public
meetings held in Missouri in 1819, perhaps the truest guide to
the sentiment that obtained in this territory at that time re-
garding the questions of Congressional restriction of slavery
and incidentally of slavery itself, is the public presentments
and remonstrances of that class of semi-official bodies known as
Grand Juries. There are eight of these documents recorded in
those newspapers of that day which have been preserved in
the various libraries of the country. Seven of these present-
ments were framed by the Grand Juries of the Circuit Courts
for the counties of St. Louis, St. Charles, Howard, Jefferson,
Lincoln, Montgomery, and Washington; and one by the Grand
Jurors of the Superior Court of Missouri sitting for the Northern
Circuit. It is thus seen that taken in connection with the
public meetings heretofore described, we are enabled to give
a fairly trustworthy account of the feeling in Missouri in nine
counties of that territory in 1819.
The first Grand Jury to return a presentment of this nature
was that for St. Louis county, of the Circuit Court for the
Northern Circuit of the Territory of Missouri. This present-
ment was made on or about April 5, 1819, and is signed by eight-
een members of the inquest and attested by the clerk of the
court.^^ It protests against the restriction on Missouri at-
tempted by the last Congress, as being contrary to the constitu-
tion and the treaty of cession. And states: "Although we
deprecate anything like an idea of disunion, , yet we
feel it our duty to take a manly and dii^nified stand for our
rights and {)rivileges "
" Mo. (inz., March 22. 1S2(). The date of the colohration is f^ivon as Feb-
ruary !7tii but it is <iuitt' probable Miat this is a typographical error, and should
have been March 17th.
" A copy of tills presentment was printed in the Mik Gn:., .\pril 11. ISIO. and
In the St. Louis Enq., April it. isi«».
Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 97
Following this presentment a similar one was returned,
April 30, 1819, by the Grand Jurors of the Superior Court of
Missouri territory, sitting at St. Louis, for the Northern Cir-
cuit.^^ This latter document protests against the attempt made
by Congress to dictate a provision in the constitution of Mis-
souri however inconsiderable that provision might be; "but in
the one proposed, the prohibition of the further introduction and
continuance of slavery in the future state of Missouri'' it believes
that all the slave-holding states are vitally menaced and threat-
ened with eventual destruction. The Grand Jurors further
said that this act of Congress was contrary to the treaty of ces-
sion and also ''unfriendly to the slaves themselves." They
concluded this protest by stating that they believed "it the
duty of the people of Missouri to make known in the most public
manner that they are acquainted with their own rights and are
determined to maintain them" and recommended ''a public
meeting of the citizens at the Court House in St. Louis" on the
15th of May next.
All the Grand Jury presentments returned in 1819 on this
subject after the two protests in April, 1819, at St. Louis, were
in July. One of these was the presentment of the Grand Jury
for the Circuit Court of St. Charles county, which was returned
on July 6th.-'' It based its objection to the attempted re-
striction by Congress on constitutional grounds and on the
treaty of cession.
The Howard county Grand Jury in their presentment of
July 14th not only set forth the constitutional objections to the
past action of Congress but declared: ''It is not now the ques-
tion whether the future admission of slavery be just or unjust —
wise or unwise. That question will be met at another time and
another place. We deny that Congress have any right to pass
upon it. It belongs to the people of the future state of Mis-
souri, and to them alone." It stated, however, that "The
" A copy of this presentment was printed in the Mo. Gaz., May 12, 1819,
and in the St. Louis Enq., May 5, 1819. Scharf, op. cit., I. 562, also contains
extracts from this document.
'-* Mo. IntelL, July 30. 1819; Mo. Gaz., July 14, 1819.
M S— 7
98 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Grand Jury feel no disposition to impugn the motives of the
majority of the house of representatives." -^
The Grand Jury of Jefferson county also viewed with regret
the attempt made by Congress to dictate an article in Missouri's
Constitution prohibiting the future introduction of slavery in
that state. They said: "That slavery is an evil we do not
pretend to deny, but on the contrary would most cheerfully
join in any measures to abolish it, provided those measures
were not likely to produce greater evils to the people than the
one complained of; but we hold the power of regulating this
matter — of applying a remedy to this evil, to belong to the
states and to the people, and not to Congress." They added:
"The right of holding slaves, although it may not be a natural
right, is one which is allowed by the federal constitution," etc.
Their argument rested entirely on constitutional grounds and
emphasized the right of a state to regulate its internal affairs.-®
The Grand Jury of Lincoln county presented a very short
protest against the attempted restriction which they considered
contrary to the constitution. They expressed a hope that
when the question of admitting Missouri was again agitated in
Congress that "the true genuine and republican spirit of the
Constitution" be consulted, and, they added, "have its in-
fluence unimpeded by mistaken notions of philanthropy or the
direful genius of usurpation." "
The Grand Jury for Montgomery county viewed "the
restrictions attempted to be imposed on the people of the
Missouri territory in the formation of a state constitution" as
"unlawful, unconstitutional, and oppressive." They added
that they hoped those restrictions would "never more be at-
tempted; and if they should," they hoped "by the assistance of
**Mo. Jntcll.. .Inly if,. 1819. A full copy of lliis pn'scnl iiicnt is found In the
InteUigencer and is siKned by J. S. Kindlay. Ikiijaniiu 11. iiirves. and fij;htiH>n
others. Tlicso two men v/vrv. later dclcK'atos to tho constitutional convention of
IH'20. This prcsintnu'nt was nluriu-d at Franklin on .luly It. ISIO.
"Mo. (Jaz.. AuKiist 11. iHli); Mo. Jnlcll.. August 27, ISIU; Jackson Herald,
August liO. 1H1«». Th<^ full te.xt is K'ivcn in all th(>.sc ncwspap«'rs.
^' .Jackson Hi raid. Auk'ust lis. 181<); St. Louis Euq., August IS, ISIO.
i
Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 99
the genius of '76, and the interposition of Divine Providence,
to find means to protect their rights." ^^
The Washington county Grand Jury protested against the
attempted restriction as being as "unwarrantable as it was un-
constitutional, and tended not only to abridge them of their
precious rights as freemen to act and judge for themselves, but
also to deprive them, in direct violation of the constitution of
the United States, as of the treaty of cession, of the free en-
joyment of a species of property which they lawfully held under
the Spanish government." -^
Excluding the resolutions adopted and toasts drunk at
public meetings, and the presentments made by grand juries,
the most valuable information preserved today that shows the
sentiment in Missouri during 1819 and 1820 over the action of
Congress and the question of slavery, is the editorials in the
newspapers of that territory. Great as is the power of the
press today, it is doubtful if there are three papers in Missouri
who exert so great an influence on so large a proportion of this
State's population as did the Missouri Intelligencer, Missouri
Gazette, and St. Louis Enquirer during the years 1819 and 1820.
This was, we believe, largely due to the fact that they, together