up before the voters. They knew the power they wielded and
<' April 19, 1820, by "A Member of the meeting."
« Afo. Gaz., April 19, 1820. editorial.
" The Enquirer accused the Methodist preachers of preaching and laboring
for slavery restriction. Some were even accused by the pro-slavery men of preach-
ing rebellion to the slaves. The latter charge was never substantiated, and the
former was denied by the Rev. M. Peck. {Mo. Gaz., ^Nlay 10, 1820, "Fair Play;
ibid.. May 24, 1820, "A. McAllister.") The Enquirer spoke of the restrictionists
as the "Yankees," a term of more wide-spread reproach in ^Missouri in 1820 than
in the sixties. {Mo. Gaz., May 3, 1820.) The pro-slavery candidates in St. Louis
county were branded as debauched, depraved bachelors who formed a lawyer
junto. {Mo. Gaz., April, May, 1820.)
128 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
did nothing that would have impaired that power. They
gathered to themselves popular opinion because they perceived
and interpreted one thing that the people wanted. The people
also wanted an unrestricted suffrage, except with age and resi-
dence qualifications, and an unrestricted system of voting, the
ballot system, but they either desired or were led to desire an
unrestricted slavery more than either or both of these."^ The
issue of the day had become solely a restricted or an unre-
stricted slavery system for Missouri.
The election was held on the first Monday and the two
days following in May, which fell on the first, second and third
of that month. Contrary to popular opinion and contrary
even to former recorded Missouri history, this election was not
held viva voce. The voting was by ballot."*^
The St. Louis county polls were the center of interest of
the Territory. There the restrictionists were strongest. There
the anti-slavery men stood a better chance of electing a delegate
than in any other county. On May 3rd, the last day of the
election, the Missouri Gazette addressed the voters in an im-
passioned editorial, that even today has a modern, twentieth
century ring. It said in part:
"Fellow Citizens, Today is the last opportunity that is left you to give your
voice in forming a State Constitution. 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 .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 cliildren,
to the latest generation, will be cursed with slavery ; or whether you
will elect men who will take measures gradually to extinguish the evil, without
interfering with the existing rights of property Your destiny is fixed by
the result of this day's vote."
*' Mo. Gaz., April 12, 19. 26, 1820. "Anthony Benezef." ibid.. April 19, 182").
"A Mechanic;" ibid.. April 20, 1820, "An Elector."
<» Billon, Annals, 1804-1821, p. 100, states that the election was held rica
voce.
All territorial elections were held by ballot. This eontiiuied tlown to Dec.
9. 1822, when the viva voce systcun was adopted but ballot voting was even by that
act still lawful. Hallot voting came back thirteen years later in is:i.'i. In those
days there was little material dilference between the two systems: neither was
secret, the judge or clerk of the election reading aloud the ticket cast or announcing
the oral vote cast. (3tis, Election Laws of Mo., pp. llf; Mo. Tvr. Laws, I. 185.
Act of Juno 18. 1808; Ibid., pp. 297f., act of Jan. 4, 1814; ibid., pp. Til-Jf.. act of
Jan. 29, 1HI7; ibid., (Laws of the State) p. 901. act of Dec. 9, 1822.
Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 129
The result of the election in St. Louis county was, however,
most gratifying to the pro-slavery party. All eight delegates
elected were anti-restrictionists and all but one had been slated
by the caucus. The total number of votes cast for all the
restrictionist candidates was 2,026, while the total for the
anti-restrictionists was 7,265 — a ratio of nearly four to one
for the pro-slavery party. The highest vote cast for a restric-
tionist was 400, which was given to J. B. C. Lucas; the lowest
was 73, to William Long: the highest vote cast for an anti-
restrictionist was 892, which was given to David Barton; the
lowest was 144, to Ridson H. Price. The pro-slavery delegate
who received the smallest number of votes was Thos. F. Riddick.
His vote was, however, 562, or 162 votes more than Lucas re-
ceived .^^ By no possibility could the restrictionists have elected
a delegate. They were numerically in the minority. There
were not more than four hundred restrictionist voters in the
entire county and at least two hundred and sixty of these were
located in the St. Louis township. Although only fifty-seven
per cent of the total vote was cast in St. Louis township, the
restrictionists obtained sixty-eight per cent of their total there.
The stronghold of the restrictionists was the town, although
even there the pro-slavery party had at least four hundred and
seventy-seven voters as against the two hundred and sixty
restrictionists. Moreover, nine of the pro-slavery candidates
received more votes in St. Louis township than any restric-
tionist candidate. In each of the other two townships in the
county the pro-slavery party was proportionately stronger
than even in St. Louis.^^ In St. Louis township the pro-slavery
candidates received three and one-half times as many votes as
the restrictionists, in the other two townships the former re-
ceived four times as many. However, in St. Louis township
<6 lA/o. Gaz., May 10, 1820. The pro-slavery votes were cast as follows:
Barton, 892; Bates, 881; Chouteau, 586; McNair, 881; Pratte, 874; Rector, 889;
Riddick. 562; Sullivan, 861; Ball, 30.3; Hunt, 392; Price, 144. The first eight
were elected, Riddick the independent pro-slavery candidate won over Hunt
the slated pro-slavery man. The restrictionist votes were cast as follows: Lucas,
400; Simpson, 390; Pettibone, 329; Bowles, 342; Bobb, 296; Beck, 111; Brown,
85; Long, 73. The last three had declined before the election.
*' Votes given by townships for each candidate found in Mo. Gaz., May 10,
1820.
M S— 9
130 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
the pro-slavery voters outnumbered the restrictionist voters,
only about two to one; in the two other townships, three to one.
The organization of both parties was strongest in St. Louis
township. Here the pro-slavery caucus slate of eight, went
through with only a defection of one hundred votes in the case
of Chouteau and about one hundred and fifty votes in the case
of Hunt. Here the restrictionist ticket of five candidates was
supported with slight scratching. In the other two townships,
however, more independent voting obtained. Hunt, a slated
pro-slavery candidate, polled only 74 votes in these, while
Riddick, the independent pro-slavery candidate, polled 365
votes, and Ball, another independent pro-slavery candidate,
received 179 votes. In one outside township, Chouteau was
so unpopular that he polled only 7 votes, while his ticket se-
cured an average of about 150 votes. To this independent
voting Riddick owed his election.
The result of the election throughout the Territory was
even more decidedly pro-slavery than in St. Louis county.
The Missouri Intelligencer on June 10th, said editorially: "It
is now certain that the whole Missouri delegation to the Con-
vention are in favor of Missouri being a slave state uncon-
ditionally." The St. Louis Enquirer on May 10th, said edi-
torially: "We undertake to say that there is not a single con-
fessed restrictionist elected throughout the Territory, nor a
disguised one that will venture to confess himself in the con-
vention." The Jackson Herald on May 27th gave a list of the
delegates elected in most of the counties and commented: "All
in favor of the continuance of slavery in Missouri." ^^ Even
the independent editor of the Missouri Gazette wrote on May
10th the following bitter confession: "The election for mem-
bers of the convention is past, and has resulted in the choice
of candidates, whose sentiments on several points we honestly
avow, we did not approve If a majority of the people
are willing and desirous that slavery shall exist eternally in
Missouri; that the right of suffrage shall be confined to those
«»The Herald on May 13th also copied In the Enquirer's comment of May
10th.
Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 131
who own a freehold, or a quantity of negroes, that all voting
shall be viva voce, we are contented."'*^
The results of the election in the other counties showed
an even stronger pro-slavery sentiment than existed in St.
Louis county. No record is found of there having been any
restrictionist candidates before the people except in St. Louis,
Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln and Cape Girardeau counties.
In St. Louis county there were not over four hundred restric-
tionists; in Jefferson county, probably not a hundred ; in Washing-
ton, about seventy; in Lincoln not over a hundred; and in Cape
Girardeau, about one hundred and fifty. In the other counties
there were either no restrictionists or they were negligible,
since no candidate was put forth. Thus allowing the liberal
number of eight hundred and twenty-five restrictionists in the
five foregoing counties, it is quite probable that there were not
over a thousand restrictionist voters in the Territory. As the
ratio of votes cast to the w^hite population ranged between one
to five to one to eight, and as the total white population of the
territory was approximately 56,000, the number of voters
voting was between seven and eleven thousand. In short the
restrictionists were not only in the minority but were hope-
lessly in that class, being outnumbered at least seven to one
and perhaps nine or ten to one.^°
«' See also Mo. Gaz., May 17, 31, 1820.
'» Lucas, who received the largest number of votes given a restrictionist,
polled only 400 votes. In Jeflferson county 265 votes were cast. This represented
265 voters, since Jefferson county elected only one delegate. There were three
candidates in the field, Hammond, Henry — both pro-slavery men — and Vausant,
restrictionist. Hammond and Henry probably received at least 165 votes.
Hammond was elected. (Scharf, Hist. St. Louis, I, 563, gives return of votes
for ten counties. Supposed to have been copied from the returns made to the
Executive office.) In Washington county all three pro-slavery candidates were
elected. All but 150 votes were cast at Mine a Burton. At this place. 1,147
were pro-slavery votes and only 61 were restrictionist votes. (St. Louis Enq.,
May 10, 1820.) In Lincoln county, one delegate to elect, 248 votes were cast.
(Scharf, op. cit.) Four candidates were in the field — two restrictionists and two
pro-slavery men. A pro-slavery candidate, IVIalcolm Henry, was elected. The
pro-slavery sentiment in Lincoln county was probably even stronger than in
Jefferson county, since it had a larger slave population but a smaller white popula-
tion. In Cape Girardeau county there were 837 votes cast. (Scharf, op. cit.)
The single restrictionist candidate, Scripps, received only 147 votes. (Jackson
Herald, May 6, 13, 1820.)
The ratio of votes cast to the total white population varied in different
counties. In Washington county it was one to five, the number of votes being
132 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
Several writers on this subject of the election of delegates
have stated that anti-Congress public opinion in Missouri
had so influenced the people that the voters elected only strong
pro-slavery delegates. In short that opposition to slavery
restriction by Congressmen had reacted and become opposition
to slavery restriction by Missourians; that anti-slavery men
were so blinded in their hatred of anti-slavery legislation by
Congress that they voted to perpetuate slavery among them-
selves; and that pro-slavery delegates were elected because of
resentment against attempted anti-slavery legislation by Con-
gress and not because of a pro-slavery sentiment. ^^ Such
statements and conclusions have a plausibility that carries
with it an almost convincing proof. All agree that Missourians
were deeply stirred in anger against attempted Congressional
slavery legislation in 1819. There is no room to doubt that
there were few in Missouri in that year who dared openly to
approve the efforts made by the majority of the National House
of Representatives to restrict slavery here. The evidence is
conclusive on this point. The next step is that so bitter was
the resentment of Missourians in 1819 against anti-slavery
legislation by Congress that even anti-slavery men voted for
pro-slavery delegates in 1820 to frame pro-slavery laws in a
Missouri constitutional convention. No evidence is given
to support this, it is merely a statement based on conviction.
On the other hand would it not be just as plausible to say that
a strong resentment against anti-slavery legislation of Congress
existed in Missouri in 1819 not only l)ecause Missourians ob-
jected to any kind of Congressional interference but because
they were strongly pro-slavery in sentiment?
The facts, however, arc these in regard to the election of
pro-slavery delegates in 1820. Missourians elected pro-slavery
delegates by overwhelming majorities not because they were
4.53 and the wliilo populalion, 2,344. In Ilowurd coiintj (he ratio was about
one to seven, the number of votes being 1,735, tlie white population 11,319. In
Cooper county the ratio was nearly one to eight, the nuinl)er of votes being 797.
the white population (),3()7. (Scharf, op. cit.; U. S. Census, 1830, Schedule p.
23.)
For list of delegates elected see Appendi.x IV.
" Carr, Afo.. ]}]). l.'>()f; 1 1 odder. Side Lights on ATo. Camp., In Aw. Hist.
Ass'n. R., 1909. p. IFiH.
Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 133
better men or anti-Congress men, but because they were anti-
restrictionists. The voters and the candidates did not write
anti-Congress articles for the April and May Missouri news-
papers of 1820, but wrote addresses to the people on pro-slavery
and anti-slavery premises, on anti-restriction and restriction
bases, on suffrage and on voting. These were the issues of the
day, and the big issue over all was slavery. No attempt was
made even by the pro-slavery candidates to convert people by
anti-Congress arguments, and if such an attempt had been
made its superficial character w^ould probably have incensed
rather than enthused Missourians. Such argument would
have been a poor battle cry in 1820 in Missouri, and there was
no hesitancy in those days to seize campaign material wherever
it could be found. Charless tried to defeat the pro-slavery
lawyers by calling them bachelors and immoral men, and un-
democratic even to the exercise of the suffrage. Benton tried
to cast coals on the heads of the restrictionists by accusing them
of inciting humble ministers of the gospel to preach the doctrine
of emancipation in the negroe's hut: but neither dug up the dead
past of Congress legislation.^- Both sides fought openly and
squarely on the slavery platform, and to the voters slavery
was the big question to be forever settled.
The voters' interest in slavery was purely a matter of self-
interest. The number of slaves in Missouri in 1820 equalled
its number of voters. The 14,667 free white males over eight-
een years toiled with or were toiled for by 10,222 human chattels.
These ten thousand represented several million dollars that were
doubly productive. No county had less than two hundred of
these, and one county had twenty-one hundred. Then, there
was the land-speculator, big and small. To get his profits or
unearned increment, settlements were necessary. The quicker
and the larger was immigration to the new State, the sooner
he became wealthy. But immigration had set in from the south,
the land of slavery. To restrict the slave immigration would
be to limit white immigration. To argue that the stopping
'= Mo. Gaz., April 19, 1820; St. Louis Enq., June 14, 1820, quotation from
Niles' Register, May 13, 1820, which had been taken for an article in the Mo.
Gaz.
134 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
of slave immigration from the south meant the beginning of
white immigration from the north, was offering the speculator
a chance in exchange for a certainty. Nor was the land spec-
ulator, big farmer and small, alone a convert to these ideas.
The business man, the surveyor, the politician, believed that
his business was bound up with more southern settlers and
more slaves. Reasons of justice and humanity were on the
side of the restrictionists, and perhaps the farsighted logic of
the future was theirs, but the reasons of dollars and self-interest
and the keen cut logic of the present fought on the side of the
pro-slavery party. In such a struggle the justice and wisdom
possessed by a few hundred souls were no strong competitors
to the self-interest and prejudice of the thousands of voters.
W
CHAPTER V.
FATHERS OF THE STATE.
PERSONNEL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1820.
It has always seemed strange to us that while much of the
pioneer and military history of Missouri is familiarly known
to all the United States, the lives of those men that framed
and set in working the State's first constitution have excited
so little interest even at home. Every schoolboy west of the
Mississippi River and many east of it know something of that
Kentucky and Missouri pioneer whose name has been popularly
associated with the Boone's Lick Road, or of that famous Mis-
sourian who has been so appropriately called the "Xenophon
of the Mexican War." Yet the work of either Daniel Boone
or Alexander W. Doniphan is equalled in Missouri history by
that performed by David Barton, Edward Bates, Nathan
Boone, Alexander Buckner, John D. Cook, Henry Dodge,
Duff Green, Samuel S. Hammond, John Rice Jones, Alexander
McNair, John Scott and many others of the forty-one dele-
gates of Missouri's first constitutional convention. While
the fame of Boone and Doniphan is fittingly preserved in
Missouri county and town named in their honor, only three of the
forty-one delegates are today so remembered.^ Indeed the
lives of many of these constitution framers are today so hidden,
not only from the general public but even from the historian,
1 Barton, Ray, and Scott counties, ISIissouri. Lillard county, ISIissouri, was
named after Colonel William Lillard, a delegate, but the name was later changed
to Lafayette county. Boone county, Iowa, was named in honor of Major Nathan
Boone, a delegate, who was one of the first white men to set foot in that district.
Bates county, Missouri, was named in honor of Governor Frederick Bates, who
was the first Secretary of Missouri Territory and later the second Governor of
the State of Missouri. Governor Bates was a brother of Edward Bates. Clark
county, Missouri, was named in honor of William Clark, territorial governor of
Missouri, and not in honor of Robert P. Clark, a delegate. Henry county,
Missouri, was named after Patrick Henry, and not in honor of Colonel Malcolm
Henry, a delegate. Perry coimty, Missouri, after Commodore Perry, and not
in honor of Samuel Perry, a delegate. Sullivan county, ISIissouri, after Sullivan
county, Tennessee, and not in honor of Major John C. Sullivan, a delegate.
(135)
136 Missouri Struggle for Statehood,
that only after years of labor is it possible to compile sketches
of their lives.- This is the more singular when we consider
that with few exceptions the convention was composed of
the foremost men of Missouri of that day.^ It included in its
membership so many forceful leaders whose remarkable careers
and abilities arouse our admiration that it seems unfortunate
to be limited to sketches of only the most noted of them. We
believe, however, that the most eminent delegates were David
Barton, John Rice Jones, Duff Green, Edward Bates, and
Henry Dodge. The first four were lawyers; the last was en-
gaged in lead mining and farming. Although in the conven-
tion the influence of John D. Cook, Jonathan Smith Findlay,
Alexander McNair, John Scott, or of several other delegates
may have been greater than that of Henry Dodge, and perhaps
equal to that of Duff Green, we have selected these two on ac-
count of their preeminently superior ability and their more
remarkable and distinguished careers.
Excepting Jones all five were entering the prime of life.
Their average age was not quite thirty-eight years: the young-
est. Bates, who next to Baber was the most youthful member
of the convention, had not yet completed his twenty-seventh
year; the oldest, Jones, who was one of the four delegates that
had passed the three score mark, was sixty-one years old.
Barton and Dodge were entering middle age, being respectively
thirty-seven and thirty-eight years old, and Green, one of the
three youngest members under thirty, had barely attained the
age of twenty-nine. Of these five the first to pass away was
Jones, who with two other delegates did not live to see the
constitution of 1820 in operation four years; Barton died within
» The following generalizations on the dolegalos will not be siii)i)ortocl with
authorities, owing to the character of the summaries.
Houck, op. cit.. III. 253, speaking of tlie delegates says: "At any rate, it
has been a matt(T of no small dilTiculty to secure reliable facts as to some of these
worthies of other days, and in a f(^w instances no details whatever could be found,
so comph^tely have their lives and very existence faded fr(»in (he recollection of
the present generation."
•The most notcnl exception was Thomas H. Benton. WluMlier Benton
feared defeat at the hands of his many enemies, if he became a candidatt> f«)r the
convention, or reasoncul that lie could exert more influence both on the constitu-
tion and his future political fortunes, if he remained outside tliat body, is a matter
of conjecture.
Fathers of the State. 137
seventeen years; while Dodge, Bates, and Green, three of the
last four survivors of the convention, lived to see another
organic law govern Missouri, a civil war threatening the ruin
of the Nation, and finally the restoration of peace.
Nothing illustrates more clearly the cosmopolitan char-
acter of the convention than the lives of its leaders. No two
were natives of the same state or territory, and only Dodge
and Green were reared in the same state: Bates was born and
reared in Virginia; Barton in what is now the State of Tennessee;
Green in Kentucky; Jones in Wales and England; and Dodge
in what is now the States of Indiana, Kentucky and Missouri.
The Bates family was one of the early English families of Vir-
ginia; the Bartons were of Scotch descent and date back to 1546,
when they were great merchant captains and as such were
called "Kings of the Sea;" the Dodge family was of pure Eng-
lish descent and had early settled in New England, where it
grew for over a century and a half before trying its fortunes in
the west; the Green family of Kentucky was of Welsh descent,
and its first American sire was one of the original owners of the
Shenandoah Valley; the Jones family is so ancient in the records
of Wales that its history is finally lost in the maze of legends of
that country. In this connection we cannot refrain from
noticing the remarkable good fortune that has followed the
descendants of four of these men. Excepting David Barton,
all married and left large families; and some of the members of
each have achieved distinction in public life. It is no exaggera-
tion to state that these four men have lineal descendants scat-
tered from ocean to ocean and from the Gulf to Canada.
The most popular man not only in the convention but in
Missouri in 1820 was David Barton. A native of Tennessee
both by birth and rearing and a member of one of the oldest
families in America, he has always been written of by historians
and biographers in the highest terms. He was undoubtedly
the most interesting and forceful speaker among the delegates,
and it is a question whether his superior or even equal as an
orator could have been found west of the Mississippi River at
that time, not even excepting Benton. We are certain that
this Valley never sent to Congress a more vivacious, witty,
138 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
sarcastic, and fascinating speaker. Not only was Barton a
brilliant speaker but he was also a man of sterling integrity.'*