FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198  
199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   >>   >|  
y had been admitted on condition that their constitutions should not be repugnant to the sixth article of the Ordinance of 1787. The State of Louisiana had been admitted under explicit conditions. It was fully competent for Congress, by virtue of its authority over Territories, to regulate all the stages in the process of framing a constitution, and then to give or to withhold its approval. The most brilliant argument on the other side was made by William Pinkney, of Maryland. Conceding that the power of Congress was discretionary, he insisted that Congress might not exact terms which would interfere with the results to be accomplished. "What, then," he asked, "is the professed result? To admit a State into this Union. What is that Union?... An equal Union between parties equally sovereign.... It is into that Union that a new State is to come. By acceding to it the new State is placed on the same footing with the original States.... If it comes in shorn of its beams--crippled and disparaged beyond the original States--it is not into the original Union that it comes.... The first was a Union _inter pares_; this is a Union between _disparates_, between giants and a dwarf, between power and feebleness, between full proportioned sovereignties and a miserable image of power." Yet there were Senators and Representatives from the North who would not be diverted from the discussion of the larger sectional and ethical issues involved in the extension of slavery. Chief among these was Rufus King, who then represented New York in the Senate. His cogent arguments made a profound impression. "The great slaveholders in the House," Adams wrote in his journal, "gnawed their lips and clenched their fists as they heard him." [Map: House Vote on the Missouri Compromise March 2, 1820] Meantime, a joint committee of conference was endeavoring to reconcile the differences between the House and the Senate. The House was put at a disadvantage by the approach of March 4--when the consent of Massachusetts to the admission of Maine would expire. It was finally agreed that the Senate should pass the bill admitting Maine as a separate measure, while the House should accept the Missouri Bill with the Thomas amendment. Missouri, in short, was to come in as a slave State, but slavery was forever prohibited in the rest of the Louisiana Purchase north of her southern boundary. An analysis of the voting in the House of Representatives reveals no
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198  
199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Congress

 

Missouri

 

Senate

 

original

 
States
 
slavery
 

Representatives

 

admitted

 

Louisiana

 

analysis


journal

 

boundary

 

slaveholders

 

southern

 

voting

 

clenched

 

Purchase

 
gnawed
 

arguments

 

extension


ethical
 
issues
 

involved

 

cogent

 

profound

 

reveals

 

represented

 
impression
 

disadvantage

 

approach


measure

 
reconcile
 

differences

 
sectional
 

separate

 

finally

 
agreed
 
expire
 

admitting

 

consent


Massachusetts

 

admission

 

endeavoring

 

conference

 

Compromise

 

forever

 
prohibited
 

amendment

 
Thomas
 

committee