with the Jackson Herald, Independent Patriot and St. Charles
Missourian, held possession of the field of journalism in Mis-
souri. But it was also the result of the ability and honesty of
the editors.^*^ It should be remembered that the editorial
^* Jackson Herald, September 4, 1819: St. Louis Enq., August 25, 1819. The
foreman of this Grand Jury was James Talbott, later a delegate from this county
to the constitutional convention of 1820.
^» St. Louis Enq., August 4, 1819; Mo., Gaz., August 4, 1819: Jackson Herald,
August 20, 1819; Mo. Intell., August 20, 1819.
»» Joseph Charless, editor of the Gazette, was the pioneer of the IMissouri
press, having established and edited successfully the first newspaper printed west
of the Mississippi River. After changes in name it today is issued as the St.
Louis Republic. Charless was not only an able and honest editor but a fearless
one as well; his high idealisn on the slavery question during the years 1819 and
the first part of 1820 shows his remarkable independence. His farewell letter to
his patrons {Missouri Gazette, September 13, 1820) is his own spirit translated
into words.
Thomas Hart Benton was one of the editors of the Enquirer, and his demo-
cratic nobility and resourcefullness has rarely been equalled. No statesman of
any land ever followed his own lights more unswerveingly and tried harder to
perfect those lights than Benton. No other statesman in Missouri history and
perhaps in the history of this Nation, excepting Washington, ever had a more
100 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
then held a more important and a more prominent place in the
paper than it does today. At least it occupied more relative
space and concentrated on fewer subjects.^^ Even at that early
day jealousies existed between editors. The papers printed
outside St. Louis were free from these, but the Gazette and the
Enquirer were bitter rivals and pursued different editorial
policies.^2 However, regarding the slavery restriction clause
attempted to be imposed by Congress on Missouri, all the news-
papers voiced their protests in the strongest terms. It was
over the election of the delegates and the question of slavery
itself that the Gazette wandered from the fold and maintained
an attitude as brave and independent as was possible, consider-
ing the strength of its foes and the weakness of its position.
absolute control over the voters of his constituency without being aided by some
kind of a machine than Benton did. His integrity was never questioned, and few
were daring enough to challenge his judgments in his presence.
Nathaniel Patton, one of the editors of the Missouri Inteiligencer, was an
able and sincere writer. His editorials are sound and their influence must have
been great. He reached the western settlements of Missouri, and published the
only paper in the Boone's Lick Country. His was the first paper published west
of the Mississippi River outside the city of St. Louis. After several changes of
place of publication and in name, it is today issued in Columbia. Missouri, as the
Columbia Ilerald-Slatesman.
Little is known regarding the ability and power of the editors of the Jackson
Herald and Independent Patriot, and of the St. Charles Missourian. The Jackson
Herald did not appear until the summer of 1819; the St. Charles Missourian ap-
peared in the spring of 1820.
" The Missouri newspaper of 1819 and 1820 contained the following general
subjects: foreign news, national news together with copies of speeches delivered
in Congress, such State news as was of the most public nature, editorials, numerous
articles by individuals, letters, a few literary articles (clipped), and advertisements.
The sensational and the personal were omitted except duels. Birtlis, marriages,
and obituaries were stated in two or three lines and frequently in one line of small
print. As the "boiler-plate" news was then unknown, the paper was "set up"
at home.
"The Gazette opposed most of the leading politicians of .St. Louis dur'.ng
1819 and 1H20 and was in turn opposed by them. It also opposed John Scott.
Missouri's Territorial Delegate in Congress, and .some of its criticisms of Scott
appear rathiT "far-fctdied" today. (C/. Mo. Ga:.. March 10. 1S19). Scott in
his turn refused to make any communications to the (JaziMte. (Cf. Mo. Ga:..
•January 1.'), 1819.) On the wiiole, Cliarless appears to have taken the unpopular
side; of the slavery (|uestion. He seems to have realized this, and liodged more
and more during the summer of 1820.
The Enquirer warmly espoused and ably championed the popular side of
slavery, and under tlu; gul(lan<'e of Benton never l(»t pass an ojiport unity to score
on Its rival.
The rivalry b«itween tlie.se two sheets llnally degenerated to pliysical violence
and Charh^ss was assaulted on May 10, 1S20, l)y I.saac N. Henry, one of the edi-
tors of the Enquirer. (Mo. Gaz., May 17, IS20).
Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 101
r In the spring of 1819 the Gazette began its fiercest attacks
on Congress. On April 7th, it said: "It has been reserved for
the House of Representatives of the present Congress to commit
the most gross and barefaced usurpation that has yet been
committed. They have ingrafted on the bill for our admission
into the Union a provision that 'the State Constitution shall
prohibit the further introduction of slavery; ' Bear in
mind, fellow-citizens, that the question now before us is not
whether slavery shall be permitted or prohibited in the future
State of Missouri, but whether we will meanly abandon our
rights and suffer any earthly power to dictate the terms of our
Constitution." ^^ Although opposing the attempted restric-
tion of Congress, the Gazette fearlessly opened its columns to
those writers in Missouri who differed from it on this point,
even though by so doing it lost both influence and subscribers,
and was bitterly criticised. In support of its position, it said:
"On the subject of the Missouri state bill, we have always be-
lieved, and still believe, that it can be clearly proved by sound
and logical argument, that the conditions attempted to be an-
nexed, are unconstitutional; but although we believe this, we
will never close our pages to a fair and liberal discussion of the
subject. Our motto is 'Truth without Fear.' " ^^ It was only
natural that the Enquirer should take advantage of this atti-
tude of Charless's especially since Benton was never known to
have either sympathy or patience for an opponent. The
Gazette replied to the Enquirer on June 16, 1819, as follows:
"For ourselves we wish but one sentiment did prevail, which
we conceive the correct one, viz.: that Congress have no con-
stitutional right to impose the restrictions." ^^ Although op-
posing a slavery restriction on Missouri by Congressional
"Scharf, op. cit., I. 561.
»« Mo. Gaz., May 12, 1819.
" The Gazette was kept busy at this time in denying its approval of restricting
slavery, and was even charged with emancipation sympathies. In 1820 it openly
came out in favor of slavery restriction and from his editorials Charless appears
to have strongly opposed that institution. During 1819 he hid behind his motto
"Truth without Fear," and let all writers have space and in answering an editorial
challenge his subterfuge argument was his opposition to Congressional restriction,
which he always managed to bring to the front as an answer to any charge of
slavery heresy. It is in the Gazette only that one meets with anti-slavery and slavery
restriction articles.
102 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
action, the Gazette did favor some kind of a slavery restriction
section being incorporated in the proposed state constitution,
and came out openly during the spring of 1820 in favor of those
candidates for delegates whose views on this subject coincided
with its position.^^ On May 3, 1820, the last day of the election
of delegates the Gazette contained this daring editorial together
with a list of the candidates and their position on the slavery
question: "Fellow Citizens, Today is the last opportunity
that is left to you to give your voice in forming a State Con-
stitution. You are now called upon for the last time to say
whether aristocracy and tyranny shall prevail — whether a few
nabobs selected by a secret caucus shall be forced upon you as
proper persons to form a constitution for your government, or
whether you will exercise the proper persons to frame your
mode of government. You are now called upon for the last
time to declare whether yourselves, and your children, to the
latest generations, will be cursed with slavery,^'' the evil and in-
justice of which is acknowledged by every one; or whether you
will elect men who will take measures gradually to extinguish
the evil, without interfering with the existing rights of property,
or injuring the growth of the country. We entreat all those
who have not yet voted to assert the dearest right of freemen.
No question can be so important. Lose the present opportunity
and no other will ever arrive. Your destiny is fixed by the
result of this day's vote," etc. etc. As final evidence of Char-
Icss's position on these two subjects, is the following extract
from his farewell letter of September 13, 1820, to his "Patrons"
on his retirement from the editorship of the Gazette: "It has
been said that the Gazette advocated the restriction of Missouri
by Congress. The base fabricator of this charge is defied cO
prove it. Examine the files and they will be found to pursue
one uniform course. Open to all communications, the editor
has never hesitated to state his opposition to the interference
of Congress, but still felt desirous that some limitation should
be put by the People, to the importation of slaves.^^
» C/. Mo. Gaz., May li. 1820.
•' Our Italics.
»• Mil. dm., ScptcmliiT i;{, 1S2U.
Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 103
In striking contrast to the few editorials which appeared
in the Gazette in 1819 opposing Congressional restriction of
slavery in Missouri, are the great number found in the Enquirer.
On March 31, 1819, the latter paper declared that Congress
would never impose the restriction on Missouri, but if it had
"the people of the United States would have witnessed a spe-
cimen of Missouri feeling in the indignant contempt with which
they would have trampled the odious restriction under their feet,
and proceeded to the formation of a Republican Constitution
in the fulness of the peoples power" etc.^^ When the various
public meetings protested and the grand juries of Missouri
returned presentments during 1819 against the action of Con-
gress, the Enquirer contained many editorials commending the
action of these bodies.^*^ The Enquirer affirmed that, although
there might be many in St. Charles county who opposed slavery
on principle, "no citizen is known in St. Louis who will support"
the statement that the citizens in the latter place were "divided
in their opinion about the constitutional powers of Congress to
prohibit slavery among" them.^^ That paper strongly attacked
the Gazette for its position, and especially the slavery restriction
and anti-slavery articles, written by individuals, which were
printed in the rival sheet.'^^ On July 21, 1819, the Enquirer
was aroused over hearing that private petitions praying the next
Congress to abolish slavery in Missouri were being circulated
»9 SL Louis Enq., March 31, 1819. On April 21, 1819, in an editorial the
Enquirer said it had discovered that "A St. Charles Farmer" who had been writing
slavery restriction articles in the Gazette lived in St. Louis and thought that his
writings would probably circulate in New England papers as evidence of the
sentiment in Missouri.
*<> St. Louis Enq., May 5, 12, 19, July 14, Aug. 18, 1819.
*^ St. Louis Enq., June 9, 1819. Following is a copy of the entire editorial:
"Missouri Slave Question. — The Editors of the National Intelligencer be-
lieve that the citizens of this place are divided in their opinion about the con-
stitutional powers of Congress to prohibit slavery among us. They were naturally
led into that belief by the face of the public papers. It was a consequence spoken
of by the citizens of this place, as the certain effect of publications made in a paper
in this town. Yet what is the fact? Are we divided in opinion upon that point?
We confidently affirm that no citizen is known in St. Louis who wiU support the
aflBrmative of the question. As to the publications they are the work of men
newly arrived, who would not be qualified, either by residence or the payment
of a tax to vote, in an election, and who with all their impudence have shame
enough to endeavor to conceal their names, to avoid the public contempt."
*2 St. Louis Enquirer, June 23, 1819.
104 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
by non-slaveholders and that these petitions were being swollen
by the signatures of "boys and striplings." And the editor of
the Enquirer protested vehemently against an Edwardsville
(Illinois) newspaper stirring up the Missouri slavery question,
and said that this was purely a domestic concern of Missouri,
that actual slavery existed in Illinois, and that the citizens of
the two states should not be thus "set against each other." ^
The attitude of the Enquirer was one of absolute opposition to
Congressional action in restricting slavery in Missouri, and
when the election of delegates took place in 1820, it favored
those who opposed any restriction of slavery in the new State.
The Jackson Herald contained no editorials of special value
on this point, but its attitude was also one of opposition to any
slavery restriction being applied in Missouri whether imposed
by Congress or by the convention. This paper was not a very
strong sheet in its editorials. It tried to maintain a fair and
independent attitude on most questions that arose, especially
on the rivalry between the St. Louis Gazette and the Enquirer
and in the bitter fights over public men and their acts.'*''
The Missouri Intelligencer bitterly opposed the action of
Congress in attempting to impose a slavery restriction on Mis-
souri and said: "This subject appears to have excited a general
burst of indignation from the people of this territory. It is a
question in which Congress have no right to interfere, and to
which we as the people will never submit. The restriction at-
tempted to be imposed upon us by the seventy-eight members of
the House of Representatives who voted for it, were those ex-
clusively from the eastern states.. They view with a jealous eye
the march of power westward, and are well aware the preponder-
ance will soon be against them; therefore they have combined
""Private Petitions — For a long time wo have been informed that private
petitions were curried about in several parts of the territory praying tlie next
congress to abolish slavery in the Missouri territory. They are said to be circulated
chiefly by persons who own no slaves themselves, and who are very willing to ap-
pear generous at the expenses of others. In promoting tiieir object, and to multiply
signatures, it is said tliat lioys and striplings are got to put down their names,
witliout the addition of tlieir ages; and by sudi contrivances as tliest^ the autiientic
expression of public sentiment in tills territory i)y (irand Juri(>s. I»ublic Meetings,
Toasts of Public com|)anies &c. is to be invalidated and overborne in tlie next
congress." {St. Louis Enq., .July 21, 1S19.)
*^ Jackson JJcrald, P(^l)ruary 20, 1820.
Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 105
against us; but let them pause before they proceed further, or
the grave they are preparing for us, may be their own sepul-
chre." ^^ On January 28, 1820, it said: "The most extra-
ordinary and unprincipled means are [being used] using by the
eastern people to prevent the citizens of this territory from
enjoying equal privileges with those of other states." It
further said that the proposed compromise of certain members
of Congress to separate by a line running west the slave and free
territory west of the Mississippi river "evinces that humanity
is not the sole object of those who brought forward the re-
striction." ^^ This newspaper not only opposed slavery re-
striction in Missouri by Congress but set forth those articles de-
fending slavery in Missouri which had appeared in other news-
papers. One article in particular taken from a Philadelphia
paper and which the Missouri hitelligencer called "a very able
and ingenius article — on the Missouri Question" strove to
prove the following propositions: (1) that "the holding of
slaves is defencible by the law of nature;" (2) that "slavery is
so by the law of God;" (3) that "slavery is so by the municipal
laws of the great majority of the civilized nations, ancient and
modern;" (4) that "slaves are property;" (5) that "negroes
have no right to object to negro slavery;" (6) that "Congress
has not the right to prohibit slavery in the Missouri territory;
(7) that "under present circumstances it is not expedient to
prohibit it." ^^ The Missouri Intelligencer from its first issue
in April, 1819, to the spring of 1820, was almost entirely taken
up with the "Missouri Question," and not only contained in-
dividual articles and editorials but copies of the speeches re-
ported in Congress."^^ On April 15, 1820, it printed in full the
*'' Mo. Intel!., (editorial) May 9, 1819. It proceeds as follows: "As well
might they arrest the covirse of the ocean that washes their barren shores, as to
check our future growth. Emigration will continue with a jiant [sic] stride until
the wilderness shall be a wilderness no more; but in its stead will arise flourishing
towns, cvdtivated farms, & peace, plenty and happiness smile on the land. Let
those who are raised by the voice of the people to watch over and protect their
rights and liberties, beware how they abuse so sacred a trust, lest they And in every
injured freeman the spirit of a Hampden rise and hurl them from their posts."
*^Ibid., (editorial) January 28, 1820.
«' Mo. Intell., Feb. 18, 1820. The article was written by one who said he
was "no friend to slavery." (Our italics.)
«« Cf. Mo. Intel!., May 7, 1819; March 4. 11, 18, 25, 1820.
106 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Enabling Act passed by Congress, and remarked in its editorial
column: "The names of those who voted in favor of the rights
of Missouri should be handed down to posterity as examples
to future legislators By their firmness, independence
and patriotism, we have been rescued from degradation, and
the constitution from violation."
The most extensive though perhaps the least valuable
source of information showing the sentiment in Missouri over
the slavery restriction attempted by Congress and incidentally
over slavery itself is the various articles written over noms de
guerre, which appeared in the Missouri newspapers of that
day. These articles are so numerous that only the briefest
summary of them is possible. It is hardly an exaggeration to
state that few issues were run off the press from April 1819 to
April 1820 which did not contain remarks on the "Missouri
Question." These articles covered the entire field of this
question both pro and con, and some took up the discussion of
slavery as an institution in se and also with regard to its appli-
cation in Missouri. They naturally divide themselves into
two general groups: those favoring, and those opposing the
attempt of Congress to impose a slavery restriction on Missouri.
The pro-Congress articles appeared in only one newspaper
in Missouri Territory, the Missouri Gazette, and logically were
anti-slavery in tone and argument. If all the 7ioms de guerre
under these articles represented different writers, then the total
number of pro-Congress Missouri authors was only six!"*^ Some
«»The most pronounced and ablest of these was one who signed himself "A
Farmer of St. Charles County." His communications appeared in the Missouri
Gazelle on the following dates: April 7. 21, May 5, 19. June 9. 30. 1819. This
author wrote a series of five letters advocating restriction of slavery either by
Congress or by Missouri, and also several replies to criticisms of his articles. He
declared that the people in his neighborhood were opposed to (he further intro-
duction of slavery in Mi.ssouri. and said that slavery was admitted to be an evil
and a curse even by its advocates. lie considered that this curse would bo
strengthened if allowed to spread and said that if C\)ngress did not restrict it in
Missouri then "wo will try to do it ourselves." As regards the constitutional
right of Congress to do this he continued: "Let none imagine tliat I believe
C^mgress does not pos.se.ss the constitutional right to proliibit tlie introduction
of slavery. I hav«^ no doubts on the subject. If slavery is anti-repul)lican.
(and who but a madman will drny that it is?) (\)ngre.ss have the right to refuse
their sanction to any constitution that tolerates it." (A/o. C.az., May T). 1819.
3d Letter dated April 21. 1819.) In iiis fourth letter (A/o. C.az., May 19. 1819,
letter dated May 1, lsi<») the "Lawyer junto" of St. Louis is first mentioned.
Popular Opinio7i i?i Missouri, 1819. 107
of these writers lay stress on the evils of slavery as an institu-
tion and the need of restricting it either by Congressional or
local action; ^^ others, while recognizing the evils of slavery
and while favoring either emancipation or restriction, empha-
sized the desirability and the good policy of waiting patiently
for Congress to act, and defended that body as acting for the
general welfare of the country. -^^
Although all pro-Congress articles were logically pro-
restriction and anti-slavery, there were a few anti-Congress
writers who also were opposed to slavery and favored restricting
it. The number of writers that took these latter positions is,
however, almost negligible.^- The circular of John Scott,
Missouri's Territorial Delegate, to the people of Missouri does
not properly belong to this class of writings since while depre-
cating slavery it still stated that a restriction of it would be
This body, composed of the leading lawyers of St. Louis, favored slavery and
wielded an almost invincible strength during this period. It was bitterly op-
posed by the Gazette and was frequently referred to as the "lawyer junto."
5" Cf. Note 49. See also in the Missouri Gazette, May 26, 1819, an article
by "An American," which is a strong emancipation piece. A very sarcastic
article written by "A Republican Slavedriver" on the excessive use of grand
jury presentments and the beneficent character of slavery appeared in the Gazette,
Sept. 18, 1819. A restrictionist article by "A Republican of the Jeflfersonian
School" appeared in the Gazette Feb. 23, 1820.
" A series of four articles by "Paciflcus" appeared in the Gazette, May 12,
19, 26 and June 2, 1819, along this line, and, while favoring the Talmadge amend-
ment and either the abolition or restriction of slavery, these articles urged ]Mis-
souri to patiently wait for Congressional action. A similar article by "Cato" ap-
peared in the Gazette, June 16, 1819, which, while favoring emancipation, thought
there was little to be feared of Congress not leaving this in the hands of Missouri.
This latter article is not a real pro-Congress argument although the writer would
hardly have grieved or criticised if Congress had fastened a slavery restriction
on Missouri.
"A writer under the nom-de-guerre of "One of the People," whose articles
appeared in the St. Louis Enquirer, April 4, 1819, said: "I do not think slavery
justifiable or beneficial; but it is for ourselves, and not for Congress to decide
that question;" etc. Another writer under the nom-de-guerre of "A Citizen of
Missovu-i" said: "I shall attempt, Mr. Editor, to convince those who read these
remarks, that the proposed resolutions were unconstitutional; that, although
slavery is anti-republican and unbecoming a great nation of freemen, still that it
is allowed by the Constitution of the United States, and being so, that Congress
have no right to determine about it." {Mo. Gaz., April 28, 1819; cf. Also Mo.
Gaz., March 24, 1819).
The above articles, together with the one written by "A Citizen of Missouri,"
which appeared in the Enquirer July 21, 1819, were the most able on this phase
of the question and were almost in a class to themselves.
108 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
"unfriendly to the slaves themselves to confine them to the
south." ^^