Part 26 (2/2)
[Implied powers affirmed.]
The legislation of 1815 and 1816 showed to the Court that its view of the Const.i.tution was accepted by the people; and it now began a series of great const.i.tutional decisions, which put on record as legal precedents the doctrines of implied powers and of national sovereignty. In the great cases of Martin _vs._ Hunter's Lessee, and Cohens _vs._ Virginia, in 1816 and 1821, it a.s.serted the right of the Supreme Court to take cases on appeal from the State courts, and thus to make itself the final tribunal in const.i.tutional questions. At about the same time, in two famous cases, McCullough _vs._ Maryland in 1819, and Osborn et al. _vs._ Bank of the United States in 1824, the doctrine of implied powers was stated in the most definite manner. Both cases arose out of the attempt of States to tax the United States Bank, and the final issue was the power of Congress to charter such a bank. The doctrine laid down by Hamilton in 1791 (-- 78) was reaffirmed in most positive terms. ”A national bank,” said Marshall, ”is an appropriate means to carry out some of the implied powers, a usual and convenient agent.... Let the end be within the scope of the Const.i.tution, and all means which are ... plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited,... but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Const.i.tution, are const.i.tutional.” Although the tariff act was not tested by a specific case, the spirit of the decision reached it also.
[Sidenote: State powers limited.]
[Sidenote: Impairment of contracts.]
Having thus a.s.serted the authority of the nation on one side, the Court proceeded to draw the boundary of the powers of the States on the other side. In a question arising out of grants of land by the Georgia legislature in the Yazoo district, it had been claimed that any such grant could be withdrawn by a subsequent legislature. The Court held in Fletcher _vs._ Peck, in 1810, that such a withdrawal was in contravention of the const.i.tutional clause which forbade the States to impair the obligation of contracts. In 1819, in the celebrated case of Dartmouth College _vs._ Woodward, this principle was pushed to an unexpected conclusion. The legislature of New Hamps.h.i.+re had pa.s.sed an act modifying a charter granted in colonial times to Dartmouth College. Webster, as counsel for the Board of Trustees which had thus been dispossessed, pleaded that a charter granted to a corporation was a contract which could not be altered without its consent. Much indirect argument was brought to bear upon Marshall, and eventually the Court held that private charters were contracts. The effect of this decision was to diminish the power and prestige of the State governments; but the general sentiment of the country sustained it. So united did all factions now seem in one theory of national existence that in the election of 1820 Monroe received every vote but one.
126. THE SLAVERY QUESTION REVIVED (1815-1820).
[Sidenote: Silent growth of slavery.]
Out of this peace and concord suddenly sprang up, as Jefferson said, ”like a fire-bell in the night,” a question which had silently divided the Union, and threatened to dissolve it. It was the question of slavery. During the whole course of the Napoleonic wars the country had been occupied in the defence of its neutral trade; since 1815 it had been busy in reorganizing its commercial and political system. During this time, however, four new States had been admitted into the Union: of these, two--Ohio and Indiana-- came in with const.i.tutions prohibiting slavery; two--Louisiana and Mississippi--had slaves. This balance was not accidental; it was arranged so as to preserve a like balance in the Senate.
[Sidenote: Slavery profitable.]
[Sidenote: Slave-trade forbidden.]
The movement against slavery had by no means spent itself: there were still emanc.i.p.ation societies both North and South. In 1794 Jay appeared to suppose that cotton was not an American export (-- 85); but since the invention of the cotton-gin in 1793 the cultivation of cotton by slave labor had grown more and more profitable, and in 1820 that export was valued at nearly twenty millions. The planters of the northern belt of slaveholding States did not share in this culture, but they found an increasing sale for their surplus blacks to their Southern neighbors; they had, therefore, joined with members from the Northern States in the act of March 2, 1807, to prohibit the importation of slaves. The act was insufficient, inasmuch as the punishment provided was slight, and slaves captured while in course of illegal importation were sold for the benefit of the States into which they were brought, In 1820 the slave-trade was made piracy, so that the nominal penalty was death.
[Sidenote: Schemes of colonization.]
One evidence of the uneasiness of the country on the slavery question was the formation of the American Colonization Society in 1816. Its purpose was to encourage emanc.i.p.ation, and thus to reduce the evils of slavery, by drawing off the free blacks and colonizing them in Africa. It had a large members.h.i.+p throughout the country; James Madison and Henry Clay were among its presidents. Some States made grants of money in its aid, and after 1819 the United States a.s.sisted it by sending to the African colony slaves captured while in course of illegal importation. The whole scheme was but a palliative, and in fact rather tended to strengthen slavery, by taking away the disquieting presence of free blacks among the slaves. The Society, however, never had the means to draw away enough negroes sensibly to affect the problem; the number which they exported was replaced many times over by illegal importations from Africa.
[Sidenote: Fugitive slaves.]
[Sidenote: District of Columbia.]
In two other directions the nation had power over slavery, but declined to exercise it The Fugitive Slave Act (Section 79) was found to be ineffective. From 1818 to 1822 three bills to strengthen it were introduced and strongly pressed, but nothing could be accomplished. In the District of Columbia, where the United States had complete legislative power, slavery existed under a very harsh code. Was.h.i.+ngton was a centre for the interstate slave-trade, and John Randolph, himself a slaveholder, could not restrain his indignation that ”we should have here in the very streets of our metropolis a depot for this nefarious traffic;” but Congress took no action.
[Sidenote: Status of Louisiana.]
A question had now arisen which must be decided. The whole of the Louisiana cession was slaveholding territory, and settlers had gone up the Mississippi River and its western tributaries with their slaves. In 1819 it was found necessary to provide a territorial government for Arkansas; and the people living about the Missouri River applied to be admitted as a State with a slaveholding const.i.tution.
127. THE MISSOURI COMPROMISES (1818-1821),
[Sidenote: Arkansas debate.]
The first step in the great slavery contest was a bill introduced into the House in December, 1818, providing a territorial government for Arkansas.
Taylor of New York proposed that slavery be prohibited in the Territory; McLane of Delaware suggested the ”fixing of a line on the west of the Mississippi, north of which slavery should not be tolerated.” The test vote on the exclusion of slavery was a tie, and Clay, as Speaker, cast his vote against it. The new Territory lay west of the Mississippi, and adjacent to Louisiana. The Northern members were, therefore, not disposed to make the issue at that point, and on March 2, 1819, an Act was pa.s.sed organizing Arkansas, with no mention of slavery. Meanwhile, Illinois had been admitted, making eleven free States.
[Sidenote: Proposed restriction on Missouri.]
Side by side with this debate had proceeded a discussion on the admission of Missouri as a State. On Feb. 13, 1819, Talmadge of New York proposed as an amendment ”that the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited, ... and that all children of slaves born within the said State after the admission thereof into the Union shall be free.”
Missouri lay west of Illinois, which had just been admitted into the Union as a Free State; the Northern members, therefore, rallied, and pa.s.sed the Talmadge amendment by a vote of eighty-seven to seventy-six. The Senate, by a vote of twenty-two to sixteen, refused to accept the amendment; there was no time for an adjustment, and Congress adjourned without action.
<script>