1819]

FIRST SEMINOLE WAR.

373

manded the offenders, but the tribe refused to give them up. Whereupon General Jackson, with a body of Tennesseans, hastened to the spot.

The reader will remember that a little prior to the battle of New Orleans, Jackson had taken temporary possession of Pensacola, on the ground that the Spanish had violated their neutrality in permitting the English to land guns and ammunition there for the Indians. But now, the Americans had themselves landed military stores at a Spanish port; while the Indians, resenting the conveyance of material intended for their destruction through territory claimed by them, undertook their defence in the same savage way that Jackson himself would probably have resorted to. But our country's dealings with the Indians have been proverbially inconsistent. The Seminoles were soon defeated and driven southward, and Jackson, entering Florida, took possession of the Spanish forts St. Mark's and Pensacola, because he alleged that they harbored the hostile Indians. The two English emissaries were captured, and, being tried by a court-martial, were sentenced. to death, on the charge of inciting the Indians to war. Jackson then ordered St. Augustine to be occupied, but this high-handed measure was countermanded by the government.

In the year following the defeat of the Seminoles (1819), a treaty was negotiated at Washington between JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, secretary of state, d Don Onis, the Spanish minister, by which the after agreed, on behalf of his government, to cede Florida to the United States for the sum of five million dollars. It was provided, however, that the money, instead of being paid directly to Spain, should be used to satisfy the claims of United States citizens against Spain for spoliations.

The president and Senate agreed to the treaty at once. Upon its being sent to Spain, the king refused to ratify it; but, after delaying more than a year, he gave it his sanction, probably concluding that it would be wiser to cancel the

claims by ceding a possession which had proved of so little profit, than to expend any money in its defence. Florida became a territory of the Republic in 1821, with General Jackson, as governor. It was first divided into two districts or counties; the one east of the Suwanee river being called St. John's, and the other west of that river, Escambia.

MISSISSIPPI had been admitted, the twentieth state, in 1817; ILLINOIS in 1818; Alabama in 1819; and Maine (upon separating from Massachusetts) in 1820. But the petition to Congress in the latter year, for the admission of Missouri, gave rise to a highly acrimonious debate, growing out of the question whether it should be admitted with or without slavery.

Missouri's chief city, ST. LOUIS, was built on the site of a tradingpost which had been established there (1763) during the French domination. The founder was La Clede, a Frenchman, who had been granted a monopoly of the fur trade of the upper Mississippi and Missouri.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. THE SLAVE TRADE
PROHIBITED.

Although at the period of the Revolution, slavery really existed in all the states, Massachusetts alone excepted, yet in the forty years which had since elapsed, it had been gradually abolished from all the section north and east of Maryland and the Delaware. Likewise, as a condition of the cession by Virginia to the Union, of all the territory claimed by it between the Ohio and the Mississippi, slavery was to be excluded therefrom; and hence Ohio, Indiana and Illinois had been admitted as free states. On the other hand, when North Carolina ceded to the government its right of possession to the territory of Tennessee, and Georgia its claim to the Mississippi territory, it was with the understanding that the institution of slavery should continue therein undisturbed.

1820]

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

375

Hence the important question which arose in Congress, when the admission of Missouri was debated, was, whether such admission should be accompanied by any restriction as to slavery.

The advocates of restriction affirmed, that every new state, had, like those just instanced, been subject to some conditions, and that the power of Congress to impose such had not been. before denied, The states of the North-West had quietly acquiesced in just such conditions, and the rule appeared to be properly settled on the ground of usage. But the oppo

nents of the measure held the opinion that any such curtailment of a domestic practice was invidious to the slave-holding states by abridging their share of political power, at the same time that it was a usurpation of the sovereign rights of the states; that a state even if admitted with such a restriction, could still establish slavery, because the constitution did not forbid it; and moreover, that it was both unwise and unsafe to confine the keeping of slaves within the original territory where it prevailed, because, while the whites would be emigrating to the new states of the West, the blacks would all remain and by natural increase would eventually outnumber and perhaps overwhelm the remaining white population.

The votes of the members upon this subject were, nevertheless, largely influenced by another question, namely, the policy of protecting home manufactures by imposing a tax upon foreign importations. The slave states were almost. altogether agricultural; and, inasmuch as manufactured goods could be imported from Europe cheaper than they could be made and sold at home, it therefore became their interest to declare for free trade. But in New England, the interference with commerce prior to, and during the war of 1812, had stimulated home manufactures, principally in iron, woollen and cotton. Many mills were erected, especially in Rhode Island, and large profits, chiefly from the making of coarse

cotton goods, were realized. however, cheaper English goods began to compete with the American, and consequently the mills of the latter were obliged to suspend operations. Then a tariff was asked for, and to defeat that measure, the agricultural and commercial interests were mostly combined against the manufacturing, in a contest for the possession of political power.

Upon the conclusion of the war,

The result of the long and exciting debate in Congress, was a resolution of compromise, intended to reconcile the two great parties who were struggling, the one to promote, the other to restrict, the extension of slavery. The resolution was to the effect that Missouri should be admitted without any restriction, that is, that it might, if it chose, be a slaveholding state; but that in the future, no slave state should be erected out of United States territory, north of the parallel of 36° 30' north latitude,-the northern boundary line of ARKANSAS. The latter territory had been separated from Missouri the year previously.

Before Missouri was finally admitted, in 1821, a constitution for the state had been formed, but it met with great opposition in Congress in consequence of its containing the clause that free negroes and mulattoes should be prohibited from coming to or settling in the state. So strenuously did the friends of that unrighteous provision contend for its passage, that it was not defeated until its discussion had occupied a large part of the session! The important decision at last arrived at was, that all free citizens of the United States should be entitled to all the rights guaranteed them by the federal constitution, where it declares "that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the several states ;" and therefore that no state law infringing those fundamental rights should be passed.

The ultimate solution of the question of slavery, as affecting the peace of the Union, must have been very different had the system

1822]

SLAVE-TRADE PROHIBITED.

377

been abolished at that time from all the states in which it existed north of the parallel of 36° 30'. It is that parallel which forms the southern boundary of Kentucky and Virginia, as well as of Missouri. Some of the foremost men of Virginia strongly favored the extinction of slavery.

Washington wrote as follows, in 1786: "I never mean, unless some particular circumstances should compel me to it, to possess another slave by purchase, it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which slavery in this country may be abolished by law." And again, he says: "There are in Pennsylvania, laws for the gradual abolishing of slavery, which neither Virginia nor Maryland have at present, but which nothing is more certain than they must have, and at a period not remote." By his will he directed that all the slaves which he held in his own right should receive their freedom.

Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson were similarly persuaded of the injustice and immorality of the system.

At London, during the year 1822, was held a conference of English and American commissioners, for the purpose of arriving at a mutual understanding with regard to the slavetrade. Articles of convention were agreed to, which authorized the commissioned officers of either nation to treat the "slave-traders as pirates,-permitting them to seize and condemn the vessels of either country engaged in the traffic, without liability of interference by their respective governments."

It will be proper to mention in this place, a few facts, as exhibiting the change in public opinion since Sir John Hawkins, in the year 1563, brought the dishonor of the slavetraffic upon the English name. The wicked commerce continued increasing, until in the twenty years between 1680 and 1700, not less than 300,000 natives of Africa had been exported by Englishmen. From 1700 to 1780, about 600,000 were exported to Jamaica alone, and with accompaniments of cruelty and a terrible disregard for life, such as have been already sufficiently set forth.