as set forth in the treaty of cession, was mentioned, concerning
which they said, "much might have been claimed, in justice,"
etc. The memorial was signed by David Barton, as "Speaker
of the House of Representatives," its authenticity being attested
by him, and was also signed by Benjamin Emmons, "President
of the Legislative Council."
It is difficult to determine the exact figure for the population
of the entire Missouri Territory in 1818. Of course that given
in the memorial, one hundred thousand, which was undoubtedly
intended for the white and black population and excluding
Indians, was too high. The increase in population had un-
doubtedly been remarkable, but it had hardl>' been great
enough to have warranted a jump from 19,970 in 1810 to this
figure in 1818, a period of only eight years. ^^ The greatest
increase had been in the Boone's Lick country which, in 1812,
numbered only one hundred and fifty families,^*" and in 1817
contained 3,386 males. ^^ The Territorial census which was
taken in August and September of 1817, a copy of which was
transmitted to Congress by Missouri's delegate, John Scott,
gives the total white male population of the territory, exclusive
" U. S. Census, 1900. Pop. I. 27f.
>« Perkins and Peck, WcsUni Annals, p. 750.
>' C/. Appendix II, wliicli contains copy of census of 1M7. and also Billon,
Annals of St. Louis, 1804-1821, p. 51. Billon makes the mistake of niving the
population of Missouri Territory by counties for 1818. which sliould have been
for 1817. The item on Missouri's poi)ulation whicli appeared in A'//<$' Register
of May H), 1818, is noi, trust wort liy.
Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 43
of Arkansas county, as 19,218. This would have made the
total white population for that year, excluding Arkansas,
between 35,000 and 38,000, which is probably nearly correct,
as we know that from 1817 to 1820 the immigration into Mis-
souri was very heavy, and that the white population in 1820
was 55,988.^^ It is quite probable that in 1818 the white popu-
lation of Missouri Territory excluding Arkansas county was be-
tween 41,000 and 44,000, besides a slave population of over
5,000.^^ This was undoubtedly a sufficient population for
statehood by comparison either with former states or even
with some admitted years after this.
The boundaries asked for Missouri in the legislature's memo-
rial of 1818 included a far greater extent of territory than had
been requested in the people's memorial of 1817, and embraced
even a larger domain than lies within the present limits of this
State. They included all the territory within the present State,
except the two northwestern counties, Atchison and part of Holt;
a large irregular portion of the northeastern corner of the present
State of Arkansas, embracing over five thousand square miles;
and a long narrow strip of land on the west, about two hundred
miles long by sixty miles wide. If these boundaries had been
accepted by Congress they would have enlarged the present
State of Missouri from twenty-five to thirty per cent, or in round
numbers, about twenty thousand square miles, and today Mis-
souri would contain nearly ninety thousand square miles.
The reasons advanced in the memorial of 1818 for asking
Congress to set such large limits for Missouri were: that the
fertile districts therein "susceptible of settlement, are small,
and are separated and detached from each other, at great dis-
tances, by immense plains and barren tracts, which must for
ages remain waste and uninhabited;" that "these distant
«8 U". S. Census, 1850. p. 665. Cf. also Niles' Register, XIII. 166. That
Missouri was being settled rapidly is shown by the fact that in December 1818,
the Territorial Legislature organized eight counties: Jefferson, December 8th,
(Mo. Ter. Laws, p. 554); Franklin and Wayne, December 11th, {Ibid., pp. 562f,
567); Lincoln, Madison, Montgomery and Pike, December 14th, (Ibid., pp. 572,
576. 580, 585); and Cooper, December 17th (Ibid., p. 594). The white males
outnumbered the white females.
i« U. S. Census, 1850, p. 665. The free colored population of Missouri in
1820 was 347 and the slave 10,222.
44 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
frontier settlements, thus insulated, must ever be weak and
powerless in themselves; and can only become important and
respectable, by being united;" and that one of the objects of
the memorialists "is the formation of an effectual barrier for
the future against Indian excursions, by pushing forward, and
fostering a strong settlement on the little river Platte, to the
west, and on the Des Moines, to the north."
The most significant feature of the Legislature's memorial
of 1818 is the large boundary requested. Compared with the
popular petitions of the previous year the limits of the proposed
State had been extended on the north, west, and south. To
ascertain the reasons for this enlarged boundary in the 1818
petition, other than those reasons set forth in the memorial
itself, is an interesting problem from an antiquarian point of
view and an important one from its bearing on the history of
several states. We believe this request was the result of two
forces: (1) the general desire of the Legislature and the people
of Missouri Territory, excluding the Arkansas country, for a
large State; and (2) the special influence exerted by those indi-
viduals and sections in Missouri Territory that had important
interests at stake in such an extended boundary line.
The large northern boundary asked for, which would have
included a portion of the southern part of the present State of
Iowa, was very probably sought by the Legislature owing to a
general desire for a large State, and not because there was any
special demand on the part of any county or district in Missouri
for this country. In fact, it is very doubtful if the memorialists
realized either the vast extent or the richness of the soil of this
northern country. The Legislature may also have been im-
pelled to sanction this northern boundary in order thereby to
have a State that was equally divided by the Missouri River.
At least it is quite probable that the representatives from
Howard and St. Charles county, as well as the inhabitants
of the potential counties of Pike, Montgomery, and Lincoln
which were erected into counties In December 1818, would
favor this.
The request for the country on the west, especially that
part along the Missouri, Kansas, and Little Platte rivers, was
Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 45
not such a haphazard demand, but rested on a sincere wish for,
and a knowledge of, the section desired. It was undoubtedly
well known that this land was very fertile and would soon be
settled by the pioneers who were ever pushing westward. The
Indians then occupied it; and what more propitious time than
this for expelling them could have been found? The demand
for this country must have come largely from the Boone's Lick
country, which had already been formed into one county and
was soon to be broken up into many. The great movement of
immigration was along the Missouri River, and those who settled
there saw clearly that population would continue to advance
on and up that highway and its tributaries. In 1819 this demand
of central Missouri, which will be considered below, is openly
set forth in the Missouri Intelligencer. We can assign no reason
for the Legislature's placing the western boundary so far west
between the Kansas River and thirty-six degrees and thirty
minutes north latitude, unless it was a desire for a straight line
or a larger state; perhaps the members of that body reasoned
that by making the line continuous they would obviate making
so many explanations to Congress. The Legislature also
probably foresaw that Missouri's Delegate in Congress would
have to employ all his ability to gain the proposed boundary on
the south, and did not wish to further embarrass him.
The boundary on the south, as set forth in the legislative
petition of 1818, began in the middle of the Mississippi River
at the thirty-sixth degree of north latitude, thence in a straight
southwestward line to the mouth of the Big Black River, then
followed the White River to where the parallel of thirty-six
degrees and thirty minutes north latitude crossed it, and then
continued along that latitude to the west until intersected by
the western boundary. No reason was stated in the memorial
for requesting this irregular southern boundary, and today it
still remains a more or less unsolved problem. The question
is in itself an interesting one and of much historical value apart
from the fact that it was partly due to this demand of the
Legislature and the influence of certain individuals that the
lower part of New^ Madrid, most of Dunklin, and all of Pemiscot
counties, are today within the limits of Missouri. For a com-
46 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
prehension of this subject it is essential that a general survey
of the boundaries and population of the southern counties of
Missouri Territory be made.
When Governor Howard, on October 1, 1812, issued his
proclamation calling for an election of territorial representatives,
he also, in pursuance of the Act of Congress of June 4, 1812,
divided and set the boundaries of the former five districts,
which he designated "counties." The county of New Madrid
was composed of the country south of Cape Girardeau county,
and extended to the very limits of the State of Louisiana.-^
On December 31, 1813, the Missouri Territorial Legislature
created Arkansas county out of New Madrid. The line of
division between the two began in the Mississippi River at
island number nineteen, which is located nearly on the thirty-
sixth degree of north latitude; thence it ran straight to the
mouth of "Red River" (Little Red, which empties into the
White River some miles below the mouth of Black River),
and then up that stream to the Osage boundary line or an ex-
tension thereof.-^ On January 15, 1819, New Madrid county
was further diminished in size by the erection of Lawrence
county, which embraced practically that part of the former
county which lay west of the St. Francois River.^^ As indic-
ative of the increase in population, it might be noted that the
southwestern part of Arkansas county was divided in December
15, 1818, into three counties,'^^ and that the United States
census for Arkansas Territory in 1820 gives seven counties
with a total population of 14,273.2'^
" Scharf, op. cit., I. 557, M. 1.
It might be noticed that prior to 1806, New Madrid district included the
whole Arkansas country. On June 27, 180G, the territorial legislature of (upper)
Louisiana cut off the southwestern part of the New Madrid district of Arkansas
for judicial purposes. Cf. Mo. Tcr. Laws, I. 08f. This act was, however, re-
pealed on .July 7, 1807, and the Arkansas country fell back under the jurisdiction
of the New Madrid district. Cf. Ibid., pp. 178ir.
" Ibid., pp. 293ff. Arkansas county embraced all the country in Missouri
Territory south of that lino.
** Ibid., pp. 354ff. Lawrence county was also given an extension to the
Arkansas river cut off from Arkansas county.
" Ibid., pp. 589ff.
»< U. S. Census, 1000. Pop., T. pp. lOf. In 1810 the population of Arkansas
was 1,002; in 1820. 14.27:i, distributed as follows among seven counties: Ar-
kansas (along the Mississippi Itiver), 1200; (^lark (central), 1,010; Hempstead
(southwest), 2,248; Ivawrence (north), 5,()()2; Miller (extreme southwest), 099;
Phillips (east, along Mississippi river). 1,201; and Pulaski (central), 1,923.
Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 47
There are several facts worth noting in this connection :
1st, New Madrid county, after the erection of Arkansas county
in 1813, contained from 1813 to 1815 practically all of Lawrence
county; 2d, Lawrence county was probably a fairly populous
county in 1818, and in 1820 contained over one-third of the total
population of the Territory of Arkansas i^^ 3d, Arkansas county
must have had a large population in 1818 or three new counties
would not have been formed from it in that year, and two more
between 1818 and 1820. With this summary of the historical
and statistical data relating to the districts interested in the
proposed southern boundary of Missouri as set forth in the
1818 memorial, the reason for the Territorial Legislature re-
questing such a boundary will now be taken up.
It has been maintained by some writers on Missouri history
that those members of the Missouri Territorial Legislature of
1818 w^ho represented the counties of New Madrid, Lawrence,
and Arkansas, were the leaders in advocating this proposed
southern boundary .^^ We do not believe this position is well
taken in regard to the two last named counties, and we are
even more convinced that the constituents of the representatives
from Lawrence and Arkansas counties did not favor inclusion
in the proposed State of Missouri. Some evidence, however,
supports the former position; some opposes it.
The foregoing historical sketch of New Madrid, Arkansas,
and Lawrence counties shows the political relation between
these districts, and hence between the Arkansas country and
the Missouri country. There was also present to a certain
extent the relationship of blood and of business interest; it
should also be remembered that both New Madrid and Law-
rence counties extended on both sides of parallel thirty-six
degrees and thirty minutes. It is important to note that one
of the trade outlets of the upper part of Lawrence county to
the north and east was through Cape Girardeau and New
Madrid counties. Furthermore, it would not seem strange
" The territorial census of Missouri Territory taken in 1817 gave the following
white male population to these counties: New Madrid, 669; Lawrence, 1,529;
and Arkansas, 827. (Billon, op. cit., 1804-21, p. 51.
« Cf. Houck, op. cit., I. pp. 4f.
48 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
that at least some of the inhabitants of New Madrid and Law-
rence counties should oppose having their counties divided and
placed under two territorial or state governments. The most
plausible evidence yet produced that the New Madrid county
inhabitants and those of the northeastern part of Lawrence
desired to be included in the new state, is the fact that during
the summer of 1819 these counties, together with Ste. Genevieve,
Madison, Washington, Jefferson, Cape Girardeau, and Wayne
(the last named, a part of Lawrence and Cape Girardeau prior
to December, 1818) petitioned Congress for their incorporation
within the proposed State of Missouri and for the Missouri
River as the northern boundary of that State,^'^ even though
the national legislature had already passed an act, which went
into force July 4, 1819, erecting the Territory of Arkansas and
setting forth its boundaries. The northern boundary of Ar-
kansas Territory, as set forth in that act, excluded that part of
New Madrid county north of the thirty-sixth parallel, and in-
cluded that part of Lawrence county south of thirty-six degrees
and thirty minutes. This petition or petitions of 1819 should
not be taken as proof conclusive of the sentiment of the people
in these counties, as it is known that such eminent men as John
Scott, David Barton, Ch. S. Hempstead, and John D. Cook
declared that the people of Ste. Genevieve and Jefferson counties
opposed it; John Rice Jones of Washington county said his
people did not favor it; and a counter-petition to Congress of
the inhabitants of Cape Girardeau county actually appeared.-^
These arguments have in them something plausible; but a
close examination shows them unsound. In the first place,
political relationship between counties or between territories
^'Jackson (Missouri) Herald. Sept. 11. 1819.
" Ibid., Aug. 23 to Sept. 18, 1819.
It should be noticed that the northern l)Oundary of Arkansas Territory, as
set forth in the act of 1819. is i)ractically the same as tlie present boundary, and
included l)ut a very little part of New Madrid county. The small part of New
Madrid county that was included in Arkansas Territory by this act was a small
triangular tract whose; sid(!s were: the St. Francois Kiv(>r on the west, tlie tiiirty-
sixth parallel on the nortli, and on the south to the in(crsi>ct ion on the St. Fran-
cois Kiv'^er of a line? drawn from a point in tlie Mississii)|)i Klvcr, at about tlnrty-
six degrees to the mouth of tiu! Little Ked Hiver where it empties into the White
River. This small tract could not have had a largo population at that lime, as
all the rest of New Madrid county north of thirty-six degrees was still left in
Missouri Territory.
Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 49
is no proof of their desire for union. For example, there had
been a close political bond between Indiana Territory and the
Illinois country. Still, when population had increased the latter
district wanted a separate territorial government of its own and
pledged its delegates to this end, and this in the face of a strong
opposition throughout the eastern Indiana country. In the
second place, the ties of blood and interest which connected
Lawrence and Arkansas counties with New Madrid and Cape
Girardeau counties were no stronger than those uniting Lawrence
county with Arkansas county, and it has never been maintained
that the last named county desired incorporation in the proposed
State of Missouri. In fact, the natural trade outlets for nearly
all of Lawrence county lay to the south. The main highways of
commerce were then the rivers, and especially was this true
where the direction of the bulky trade was down-stream. New
Orleans was the port of export for the surplus products both
agricultural and mineral of the Mississippi Valley. The surplus
products of Lawrence county could reach that city entirely by
water, and be propelled by current the entire distance. The
St. Francois, the Big Black, the White, the Little Red, the
Arkansas, and the Mississippi rivers together with their branches
made a network of water channels in this district. Their
superiority over the land routes, which then passed through
swamps and forests and over hills, is obvious. In 1818 Lawrence
county faced south and it remained so till the arrival of the rail-
roads. In the third place, while New Madrid and Lawrence
counties extended on both sides of the thirty-six-thirty line
and perhaps did not desire to be cut into two parts, this is not
sufficient reason to justify our stating that each county there-
fore had the same predilection as to its incorporation in either
Missouri or Arkansas. We are quite convinced that the exact
opposite of this is true. We believe that New Madrid county
desired inclusion in Missouri; that Lawrence county desired
inclusion in Arkansas. To us the most plausible proof, that has
yet been brought to light, showing the desire of Lawrence
county and, therefore, of her representatives for incorporation
in the proposed State of Missouri, is the abortive Missouri-
river-boundary petitions of 1819. These petitions will be taken
M S— 4
50 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
up again when we consider the memorials of that year, and we
hope that the importance of the subject will plead our pardon
for any repetitions that are made.
Fortunately, not only do we know the general provisions
of these Missouri-river-boundary petitions and the exact bound-
aries set forth in them, but, what is still more important, we
also have the most irrefutable evidence relating to their value
and their influence both at home and abroad. These petitions,
purporting to represent the wishes of the people of seven southern
Missouri counties and of the county of Lawrence in Arkansas
Territory, requested Congress to give the proposed State of
Missouri the following boundaries: on the north, the Missouri
River from its mouth to the mouth of the Kansas River and
thence in a straight line west to the border of the United States;
on the west, that part of the western boundary of the United
States lying between the point of intersection on it of the pro-
posed northern boundary of Missouri and the thirty-sixth
parallel; on the south, east along the thirty-sixth parallel to its
intersection with White River, thence down that river to the
mouth of Big Black River, then east to the Mississippi River;
and on the east, thence up the Mississippi River to the mouth
of the Missouri River. The plan proposed was chimerical. It
obtained the sanction of few if any leading politicians even in
southern Missouri. It received the support of no Missouri
newspaper and its provisions were preserved for posterity by
its opponents. It was the most selfish, unpatriotic, and ill-
timed movement in the early history of this State, and was
then so regarded by Missourians. No class supported it except
perhaps a few small politicians, who wanted an issue to embarrass
their opponents and to advantage themselves by arousing sec-
tional rivalry, and some large landowners, who through mis-
directed patriotism and hope of gain were willing to sacrifice
the northern Missouri settlements and thwart the wishes of
the northern Arkansas people. As annalists, we regret the
obscurity surrounding the promoters of this plan; as Missourians,
we find consolation in this fact. Of the thousands of white
male inhabitants in the counties from which these petitions
issued, only five or six hundred signed them. It was this small
Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 51
number of signatures attached, so said Scott — Missouri's dele-
gate to Congress — that prevented the proposition from causing
great difficulty in Washington.-'-* In short, the leaders of the
entire movement kept themselves well hidden. It was un-
popular from its inception, and even Cape Girardeau county,
which would seem to have benefited most by such a plan,
strenuously opposed it. There existed at this time a considerable
amount of jealousy between the north Missouri country and the
southeastern counties of this territory. This was, we believe,
one of the mainsprings behind these petitions of 1819. It is
to the enduring credit of the southeastern Missouri counties
that their people and their leaders refused to be inveigled in
such a scheme. The plan itself was absurd, considering it
wholly from the southern boundary proposed. The establish-
ment of Arkansas Territory several months prior to the appear-
ance of these petitions, had settled the boundary line between
that territory and Missouri. Practically all New Madrid
county had been left in Missouri Territory; what little re-
mained in Arkansas is not worth considering here. Lawrence
county had, it is true, been bisected by parallel thirty-six de-
grees and thirty minutes, but this was a half degree farther
south than the Arkansas petition of 1818 had requested as the
northern boundary of Arkansas Territory. We are even forced
to conclude that these petitions of 1819 w^ere as absurd as they
were ill-timed, as selfish as they were abortive, and as unpopular
as they were unpatriotic.
On the other hand, there is conclusive evidence that Ar-
kansas county did not favor such a dividing line as was proposed
in the Legislature's memorial of 1818. Lying so far south that
county certainly did not expect to be a part of Missouri. Be-
sides, in the fall and winter of 1818-1819, there were in circula-
tion several Arkansas petitions praying for a separate territorial
government. One of these petitions, dated December (?) 1818,
"by sundry inhabitants of Southern Missouri praying for a
separate government as the Territory of Arkansas" is still in
»9 S/. Louis Enquirer, Aug. 2. 1820; Mo. Intelligencer, Aug. 12, 1820.
52 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
existence.^^ The boundary requested in it on the north is as
follows: "a. line to be run due West from the Missippi [sic]
river in the thirty-sixth parallel of north lat. to the river St.
Francis — thence up the middle of the main channel of the said
river St. Francis to the thirty-seventh parallel of north Lat.
and thence due West to the Western boundary of United States
Territory West of the Mississippi."^^ Why, then, should the
Arkansas county and the Lawrence county members of the
Missouri Territorial Legislature of 1818 favor an extended
southern boundary for Missouri, thereby cutting down the area,
and, what is still more important, reducing the population of
Arkansas territory? And, furthermore, why would they desire
to thwart the wishes of their constituents and vote contrary to