as to

I until the period arrives when it will be my duty to act, and then I shall weigh well the injunctions of the Constitution, which, when clear and distinct to my mind, will be conclusive with me. The next consideration will be a fixed and unalterable attachment to the Union. My decided opinion is, that States composing our Union, new as well as old, must have equal rights incident to the General Government, an equal share of power, and retaining to themselves the like, that they can not be incorporated into the Union on different principles and conditions. Whether the same restraint exists in the power of the General Government Territories in their incipient and territorial state, is a question on which my mind is clearly decided. By the Constitution Congress has power to dispose of, make all needful rules and regula tions respecting the territory and other property belonging to the United States, with a provision that nothing in this Consti tution should be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or any particular State. This provision is the only check on the power of Congress, and has no operation, as I presume, on the present case. This power applies to the territory ceded by individual States, to the United States, and to none other. In such portions of the territory so ceded as altogether uninhabited, the people who move there, under any ordinance of Congress, have no rights in the territorial except such as they may acquire under the ordinance. question therefore can not occur in regard to them. If there be any restraint then on this power in Congress it must be found in other parts of the Constitution. Slavery is recognized by the Constitution as five to three; but is not the right thus recognized that only of the States in which the slaves are, as the measure or rate of representation in the House of Representatives, and for direct taxes? Is it not a right to the slaves themselves, presume to their owners out of the State in which they another clause it is provided, that if slaves run away they be pursued, demanded, and brought back; this a right of slave holding States, and of the owners of slaves living in them would apply to slaves running into Territories, as well as

are

state, The

not as I are? By may

and into

States. As slavery is recognized by the Constitution, it is evidently unjust to restrain the owner from carrying his slave into a Territory and retaining his right to him there, but whether the power to do this has not been granted, is the point on which I have doubts, and on which I shall be glad to receive your opinion.

If I can be satisfied that the Constitution forbids restraint, I shall of course obey it in all cases.

"Should a bill pass admitting Missouri subject to such restraint, I shall have no difficulty in the course to be pursued, nor should I in any future case, respecting the admission of any other State. Arkansas, being organized without restriction, and her people having moved there, as is understood, stands on the most favorable ground on Constitutional principles, on the view stated above.

How

"Considerations of injustice and impolity also merit much. attention, and will have weight with me. I do not think, supposing the Constitutional right to exist, that Congress ought to confine the slaves within such narrow limits, even of territories, as might tend to make them a burthen on the old States. far I may go on this principle will merit great consideration. If the right to impose the restraint exists, and Congress should pass a law for it, to reject it as to the whole of the unsettled territory, might with existing impressions on other questions, affect our system. This I should look to with a just sensibility and to the part likely to be injured.

In a letter accompanying this copy Mrs. Gouverneur says:—

"It seemed to take me out of myself to occupy myself with something entirely mechanical; and consequently I have deciphered some very illegible manuscript which I now enclose. I am positive that the letter without superscription was to Mr. Jefferson. It seemed the habit of Mr. Monroe to confer with him on important political measures. The account of the Lafayette reception strikes me as especially interesting. Mr. Calhoun wrote an illegible hand, but the enclosed is an accurate copy. Mrs. Trist is now advanced in years, and I am indebted to her for having exerted herself in my behalf.

"The sentiments expressed in Mr. Monroe's letter on the Missouri question might, without detriment, be imitated by our present statesmen. The spirit of justice to every portion of the country strikes me as a beautiful sentiment, and accords with my views of love of our Union.' It is the tone that pervades all his letters.

'Trusting you may find the extracts of service,

"I am ever yours,

M. GOUVERNEUR."

CHAPTER XX.

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION-DANIEL D. TOMPKINS.

ON

but

N the 8th of April, 1820, by a call issued by General Samuel Smith, of Maryland, a Congressional caucus was convened for the purpose of making nominations for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, the day of these caucuses was past, and nothing accomplished, as few Congressmen gave any heed to the call. No interest was taken in the matter, and it seemed to be generally understood that Mr. Monroe would have no opposition.

was

The Federal party, as such, had passed out of existence, and for all practical purposes its members were identified with the Republican (Democratic) party. Those of them who still held themselves separate were waiting for the new cast of parties on the issues now constantly developing. Mr. Tompkins, the Vice-President, wanted to become Governor of New York again, but it was well understood if he failed in his race for that position, he would pect a re-election with Mr. Monroe.

that

ex

was

During the summer of 1820 some attempt made in Philadelphia to organize an anti-slavery movement with candidates for the Presidency and VicePresidency, but nothing came of this spirt. There was now really no opposition to the re-election of Monroe

and Tompkins. But this extraordinary unanimity was more apparent than real. There was, in truth, considerable feeling against Mr. Monroe. But it was without organization or leadership, and, of course, counted for nought. The ill-will always felt toward Mr. Monroe had really not diminished greatly through the so-called "golden age" of non-partisan "good feeling." In 1816, Jonathan Elliot published in Washington City a pamphlet of sixteen pages of reasons and opinions against Mr. Monroe's nomination. And there was certainly little change of heart among the Federalists or Federalistic Democrats on account of the company they kept. Even the Democrats were not all of one mind on this point. One of the most decided opponents of Mr. Monroe's election at first and always was Aaron Burr, who hoped, through his son-in-law, Governor Alston, to see a more effective organization against him in 1816. Even then Burr favored the election of General Jackson, through whom he hoped to recover, to some extent, from his misfortunes. But when this did finally occur, Jackson sorely disappointed him.

This Presidential election was the most noiseless and quiet which has ever marked the history of this country, there being no opposition to the candidate, by general consent or by general indifference, Mr. Monroe receiving all the electoral votes cast except one.

The whole number of electoral votes at this time, counting the three of Missouri, should have been two hundred and thirty-five, but only two hundred and thirty-two were cast; three States, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee, each having one vacancy. New Hampshire had eight electoral votes, all being Republican, but one of these was cast for John Quincy

Adams, on the worthy fear that if nobody else happened to think of doing a similar act, Mr. Monroe would apparently be represented in history as occupying a like place with General Washington in the esteem of his countrymen.

Richard Stockton, of New Jersey, received eight of the fifteen votes of Massachusetts for Vice-President; New Hampshire gave one of her votes for VicePresident to Richard Rush, of Pennsylvania; Robert G. Harper received one vote from his State for that office; and Delaware gave her four votes to Daniel Rodney, of that State; thus leaving two hundred and eighteen electoral votes, counting Missouri, for Mr. Tompkins for Vice-President.

On Wednesday, February 14, 1821, the two Houses of Congress met for the purpose and counted the electoral votes, giving the result as here mentioned. In this joint meeting the Missouri question was duced as an obstruction to the count, but was disposed of in the usual way of giving the result with and without the vote of the State in dispute.

intro

born

Daniel D. Tompkins, sixth Vice-President of the United States, was the son of a farmer, and was June 21, 1774, at Scarsdale, Winchester County, New York. He was a wild boy of attractive and somewhat brilliant but not deep mental qnalities. He desired a professional career, and, as a preparatory step, was sent to Columbia College, where he graduated in 1795then studied law and was admitted to the bar in York City in 1797.

He

New

A convention, called to amend the constitution of New York, was convened at Albany, October 13, 1801, with Aaron Burr as president. In this convention was