To James Monroe
Montplr., Feby 10, 1820.
I have duly recd. your favr. of the 5th, followed by a copy of the
public documents, for which I give you many thanks. I shd. like to get a copy
of the Journals of the Convention. Are they to be purchased & where?
It appears to me as it does to you, that a coupling of Missouri with
Maine, in order to force the entrance of the former thro' the door voluntarily
opened to the latter is, to say the least, a very doubtful policy. Those who
regard the claims of both as similar & equal, and distrust the views of
such as wish to disjoin them may be strongly tempted to resort to the
expedient; and it wd. perhaps, be too much to say that in no possible case such
a resort cd. be justified. But it may at least be said that a very peculiar
case only could supersede the general policy of a direct & magnanimous
course, appealing to the justice & liberality of others, and trusting to
the influence of conciliatory example.
I find the idea is fast spreading that the zeal wth. which the
extension, so called, of slavery is opposed, has, with the coalesced
leaders, an object very different from the welfare of the slaves, or the
check to their increase; and that their real object is, as you intimate, to
form a new state of parties founded on local instead of political distinctions;
thereby dividing the Republicans of the North from those of the South, and
making the former instrumental in giving to the opponents of both an ascendancy
over the whole. If this be the view of the subject at Washington it furnishes
an additional reason for a conciliatory proceeding in relation to Maine.
I have been truly astonished at some of the doctrines and deliberations
to which the Missouri question has led; and particularly so at the
interpretations put on the terms "migration or importation &c." Judging
from my own impressions I shd. deem it impossible that the memory of any one
who was a member of the Genl. Convention, could favor an opinion that the terms
did not exclusively refer to Migration & importation into the U.
S. Had they been understood in that Body in the sense now put on them, it
is easy to conceive the alienation they would have there created in certain
States; And no one can decide better than yourself the effect they would have
had in the State Conventions, if such a meaning had been avowed by the
Advocates of the Constitution. If a suspicion had existed of such a
construction, it wd. at least have made a conspicuous figure among the
amendments proposed to the Instrument.
I have observed as yet, in none of the views taken of the
Ordinance of 1787, interdicting slavery N. W. of the Ohio, an allusion to the
circumstance, that when it passed, the Congs. had no authority to prohibit the
importaton of slaves from abroad; that all the States had, & some were in
the full exercise of the right to import them; and, consequently, that there
was no mode in which Congs. could check the evil, but the indirect one of
narrowing the space open for the reception of slaves. Had a federal authority
then existed to prohibit directly & totally the importation from abroad,
can it be doubted that it wd. have been exerted? and that a regulation having
merely the effect of preventing an interior dispersion of the slaves actually
in the U. S. & creating a distinction among the States in the degrees of
their sovereignty, would not have been adopted, or perhaps, thought of?
No folly in the Spanish Govt. can now create surprise. I wish you
happily thro' the thorny circumstances it throws in your way. Adieu