Part 11

[78] Miss. Constitutional Convention, 1868, pp. 215-220. This Convention dropped that provision, found in the Constitution of 1832, restricting the origination of money bills to the lower house. The Constitution of 1890 expressly declares that all bills may originate in either house and be amended and rejected in the other.

[79] Lowry and McCardle: Hist. Miss., p. 230, Cf. also Barksdale: Reconstruction in Mississippi, p. 339 (In Noted Men of the Solid South.)

[80] Miss. Laws, 1875, p. 46.

TERRITORIAL GROWTH OF MISSISSIPPI

J.M. WHITE, M. S.

In 1783 the independence of the Thirteen Colonies in America was recognized. Fifteen years later on April 7, 1798, Congress passed an act a part of which was as follows: "All that country bounded on the west by the Mississippi river; on the north by a line to be drawn due east from the mouth of the Yazoo river to the Chattahoochee river; on the east by the river Chattahoochee; and on the south by the thirty-first degree of north latitude, shall be, and hereby is constituted one district, to be called the Mississippi Territory." More than half of this territory is now embraced in the state of Alabama, and the portion that remains to Mississippi constitutes something like one-third of the area of the state. Very little of the boundary of the original territory remains intact, and in so far as Mississippi is concerned all that remains of this original boundary is that around its south west corner, extending from Pearl river along the thirty-first degree of north latitude to the Mississippi river and up that stream to the mouth of the Yazoo river.

The lands that have been added to the original territory lie to the north and to the south of it--that added on the north comprises the South Carolina and Georgia cessions, and that on the south a portion of the Louisiana Purchase, or Spanish cession.

Before going farther into this subject it is necessary that we examine briefly some of the old grants made by Great Britain for the purpose of stimulating the formation of Colonies in the New World. By such an examination we hope to get a clearer idea of the subject, and how it is that some of the boundaries of our state are where they are. The first of these grants to embrace the territory now in Mississippi was that made by Charles I. to his Attorney General, Sir Robert Heath, in 1629. This grant known as Carolina was possibly the largest ever made to any one individual, covering as it did almost all that part of the United States south of the present southern boundary of Virginia and of Missouri. Mississippi was completely swallowed up in this princely domain. Thirty years later (1659) soon after the death of Oliver Cromwell and about the time of the restoration of the Stuart kings to power in England, this charter for non-user was voided, and in 1663 Charles II. gave to eight of his royal favorites, the Lords Proprietors, a charter to Carolina, and by a supplemental charter two years later (June 30, 1665) granted on the petition of the Lords Proprietors, he extended the territory of Carolina so that its northern boundary was 36 degrees thirty minutes north latitude and its southern 29 degrees north latitude.[81] All of Mississippi was in like manner embraced in this grant. This charter was surrendered to the King by seven of the proprietors, act of Parliament July 25, 1729.[82] It had been one hundred years since the grant to Robert Heath. (The eighth proprietor gave up his claim Sept. 17, 1744.) It was at this time that Carolina was divided, South Carolina having remained a part of it until this date. The western portion of the line separating the Carolinas, now forms the northern boundary of Mississippi.[83]

Three years later June 9, 1732, George II., King of Great Britain, granted a charter for the establishment of the Colony of Georgia in America. The lands embraced by the provisions of this charter lay within the royal province of South Carolina, between the Savannah and the Altamaha rivers and the zone lying between parallels passing through the head waters of these streams and extending to the Pacific Ocean.[84]

Now the line passing through the head waters of the Savannah left a zone twelve or fourteen miles wide belonging to South Carolina, and lying between said line and the southern boundary of North Carolina. This strip east of the Mississippi embraced 4900 square miles and was generously ceded by South Carolina to the United States in 1787, and today forms the northern part of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. South Carolina's right to this zone was not questioned nor was Georgia's right to her western zone lying between the parallels passing through the head waters of the Savannah and Altamaha rivers. This zone became, as did the South Carolina zone, a part of the Mississippi Territory, and together they constituted the lands added to the original Mississippi territory on the north as above indicated. But as to the original territory, viz., the zone lying between the thirty-first and the thirty-second and one-half degrees of north latitude, a number of disputes at different times arose. South Carolina claimed it, Georgia claimed it, Spain claimed it, and the United States claimed it. The contentions that arose in consequence of these conflicting claims were protracted over a quarter of a century.

In 1752 the Georgia charter was surrendered, and by virtue of the French and Indian war which soon followed, and the treaty of Paris 1763, Great Britian made good her claim, over France, to all lands east of the Mississippi river and began at once to occupy this territory, which prior to 1732 had been a "sort of free zone of doubtful ownership." The King of Great Britain issued a proclamation, Oct. 7, 1763, creating the provinces of East Florida and West Florida and by the same proclamation the Georgia territory according to the charter of 1732 was extended so as to take in the lands lying between the rivers Altamaha and St. Mary's. This proclamation also settled temporarily a dispute which had arisen between the provinces of South Carolina and Georgia as to the right to the said territory. The provision is as follows: "We have also, with the advice of our Privy Council aforesaid, annexed to our province of Georgia, all lands lying between the rivers Altamaha and St. Mary's." Thirteen years later the Colonies declared their independence, and, as was natural, each claimed jurisdiction over areas previously determined by royal charters, proclamations, &c. At this time Georgia's claims were bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean and the Savannah river; on the north by a line passing through the head waters of said river to the Mississippi; on the west by the Mississippi river; and its southern boundary was one with that of the United States. Her title to all of this territory was the charter of 1732, King George III's proclamation of Oct. 7, 1763, extending the area as provided by said charter, and a commission[85] to Governor Wright Jan. 20, 1764, which gave him jurisdiction as far west as the Mississippi and as far south as the thirty-first degree of north latitude.[86]

Acting upon these claims, in 1785 the legislature of Georgia established the County of Bourbon in the extreme southwestern limit of her claim, and 1788 authorized the sale of large bodies of land lying between the Tombigbee and the Mississippi rivers to certain companies known as Virginia Yazoo, South Carolina Yazoo, and the Tennessee Yazoo. These sales were made; but when the State Treasurer refused to accept Georgia bills of credit in payment, the Virginia company withdrew the moneys that she had previously paid and the South Carolina Company brought suit against Georgia in the supreme court of the United States; but the ratification of the eleventh amendment to the Federal Constitution, privileging a state from being sued, cut short the suit.[87]

In 1795 another act was passed authorizing the sale of these lands, but on investigation it was found that many members of the Legislature--in fact all the members voting for the sale except one--were interested in these sales in a pecuniary way and a third Legislature, 1796, declared the act of the previous legislature null and void, because obtained by fraud and corruption, and the records of all the sales and conveyances made under it were blotted out and destroyed.

This, however, did not vitiate the titles of these companies to said lands.[88] The supreme court of the United States decided that the act of the Georgia legislature in repealing the prior act for the sale of the land was unconstitutional and void, was in violation of a contract, and that the titles of claimants were good and valid.[89]

In the midst of all this confusion the United States planted the Mississippi territory with boundaries as given above, justifying her right to do so in her belief that these lands did not belong to Georgia or to any other state at the time of the signing of the peace treaty in 1783, but to the United States in common as the result of their combined effort in establishing independence. In deference, however, to Georgia's claims, Congress in authorizing the establishment of a government in the Mississippi territory provided, "That the establishment of this government shall in no respect impair the right of the state of Georgia, or of any person or persons, either to the jurisdiction or the soil of the said territory; but the rights and claims of the said state, and all persons interested, are hereby declared to be as firm and available as if this act had never been made."

Section I. of this act is as follows: "That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, authorized to appoint three commissioners, any two of whom shall have power to adjust and determine, with such commissioners as may be appointed under the legislative authority of the state of Georgia, all interfering claims of the United States and that state, to territory situated west of the river Chattahoochee, north of the thirty-first degree of north latitude, and south of the cession made to the United States by South Carolina; and also to receive any proposals for the relinquishment or cession of the whole or any part of the other territory claimed by the state of Georgia, and out of the ordinary jurisdiction thereof."[90]

To all this Georgia protested vigorously and asserted her right to the land in question. Commissioners were, however appointed as provided. They were not long in reaching an agreement, which led to the cession of these lands to the United States. The terms were about as follows: The United States gave Georgia in exchange for these lands, a strip about twelve miles wide now forming the northern part of Georgia; agreed to extinguish the Indian titles within her limits; to admit the ceded territory into the Union as a state, when the population should number sixty thousand souls; to confirm all grants recognized by Georgia as legal; to set apart five million acres to satisfy claims such as those of the Yazoo companies and other companies which Georgia did not consider legal; and to pay a million and a quarter dollars to the state of Georgia from the proceeds of lands sold in the said district.[91] All this having been agreed to by Congress, the cession was formally made in 1802 and two years later, together with the South Carolina Cession lying just to its north, became the Mississippi territory. But the contest did not end until Congress voted eight million dollars in 1814 in land script to satisfy all claimants.[92]

The territory had not, however, reached its full growth, for there was yet to be added the strip south of thirty-first degree of north latitude and lying between the Perdido and the Pearl rivers. The title to this land, and in fact all British West Florida, was a subject of dispute between the United States and Spain. This dispute had its origin in the indefiniteness of boundaries as provided by the treaties given by Great Britain to said powers on Sept. 3, 1783. The United States claimed the thirty-first degree of north latitude as her southern boundary, while Spain claimed as far north as thirty-two degrees and thirty minutes north latitude as her northern boundary. The land here in dispute, it will be observed, was that of the original Mississippi territory. To these lands Spain waived claim by treaty, Oct. 27, 1795.[93]

On April 30, 1803, France sold to the United States Louisiana. This purchase brought in question the title of the remainder of British West Florida, i. e., that portion lying south of the thirty-first. This question had its origin in the indefiniteness of the boundary of Louisiana, and although the matter was not definitely settled until 1819, when Florida was purchased of Spain, the United States disregarded Spain's claim, and on April 14, 1812 added that portion west of Pearl river to Louisiana, and on May 14, 1812 the remainder was incorporated with the Mississippi territory.[94]

With this act the Mississippi territory reached its full growth. It embraced all the territory which now makes up the states of Mississippi and Alabama. It had been just fourteen years, one month and seven days since the original territory was organized. It is estimated that 33,956 square miles were included in that territory. To the north of it 54,622 square miles had been added, and to the south 10,482 square miles, (of which 4,482 square miles is water.)[95] In all the Mississippi territory embraced 99,060 square miles. Clause four of the act organizing the territory is as follows: "The territory hereby constituted one district, for the purpose of government, may, at the discretion of Congress, be hereafter divided into two districts, with separate territorial governments in each, similar to that established by the act. Congress exercised the right herein reserved, and on Dec. 10, 1817 the western portion of that territory embracing 46,810 square miles became the State of Mississippi, and the proud commonwealth joined the sisterhood of States."

FOOTNOTES:

[81] Public Domain, p. 51. (Extract charter, June 30, 1665.) "Know ye, that at the humble request of the said grantees, etc., we are graciously pleased to enlarge our said grant unto them according to the bounds and limits hereafter specified, * * * all that province * * * within our dominions in America aforesaid, extending north and eastward as far as the north end of Currituck river or inlet, upon a straight westerly line, to Wyonoak creek, which lies within or about the degrees of thirty-six and thirty minutes northern latitude, and so west in a direct line as far as the south seas; and south and westward as far as the degrees 29, inclusive of northern latitude &c., &c."

[82] The Public Domain p. 52.

[83] Poore's Charters and Constitutions Vol. II. p. 1410.

[84] Extract from charter, June 9, 1732: "Know ye, therefore, that we, greatly desiring the happy success of the said corporation, for their further encouragement in accomplishing so excellent a work, have of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, given and granted, and by these presents, for us, our heirs, and successors, do give and grant to the said Corporation, and their successors, under the reservations, limitations, and declarations, hereafter expressed, seven undivided parts (the whole into eight equal parts to be divided) of all those lands, countries, and territories, situate, lying, and being, in that part of South Carolina in America, which lies from the northern stream of a river commonly called the Savannah, all along the sea coast to the Southward, unto the most southern stream of a certain other great river called the Altamaha, and westward from the heads of the said rivers respectively, in direct lines to the South Seas."

[85] McMaster.

[86] Public Domain.

[87] McMaster Vol. III.

[88] McMaster Vol. III.

[89] Public Domain p. 84.

[90] Section 5 of the act. Poore's Charters & Constitutions Vol. II.

[91] McMaster Vol. III.

[92] McMaster Vol. III.

[93] Art. 2: "To prevent all disputes on the subject of boundaries which separate the territories of the two high contracting parties, it is hereby declared and agreed as follows, to wit: The southern boundary of the United States, which divides this territory from the Spanish Colonies of East and West Florida, shall be designated by a line beginning on the river Mississippi, at the northernmost part of the thirty-first degree of latitude north of the equator which from thence shall be drawn due east to the middle of the river Apalachicola or Chattahoochee," etc.

[94] The Public Domain.

[95] Public Land Commissioner Parts 1 & 4 pp. 88 and 105.

THE EARLY SLAVE LAWS OF MISSISSIPPI.

BEING SOME BRIEF OBSERVATIONS THEREON, IN A PAPER READ BEFORE THE MISSISSIPPI HISTORICAL SOCIETY, AT A MEETING HELD IN THE CITY OF NATCHEZ, APRIL 20-21, 1899.

BY ALFRED H. STONE, ESQ.

Probably no institution with which history deals has been the centre of more momentous events, or the subject of more earnest and acrimonious discussion than that of human slavery. To the study of whatever of the states of civilization we may devote ourselves, we find that, regardless of its present position of advancement, at some period of its history the personal ownership of human beings was a recognized feature of its social fabric. Nor is it true that the existence of this institution at any certain period of a people's history can be taken as an evidence of a low state of intellectual, moral or social development during such period. Quite the contrary was often the case,--despite the fact that we have heard so much of "the demoralizing and degrading effects of slavery" and are told that it was ever a curse upon any people who tolerated it,--for both biblical and secular history are replete with testimony to the magnificent achievements of nations whose most glorious epochs were those during which slavery flourished.

It is foreign, however, to our purpose to engage in a discussion of slavery as a civil institution, or to question whether its toleration was of good or evil effect, or yet to inquire whether it could ever have justifiably existed. We propose to look at but one of its many features,--and that merely from the standpoint of an investigator of what has already passed into the realm of ancient history,--become something "flat, stale and unprofitable" to all save the curiously inclined.

The bitter and often unreasoning hatred, on the part of many, of the institution and those who upheld it in this country, and the repugnance with which it came to be generally regarded by even sincere and generously inclined people in a section in which it was non-existent, were unquestionably largely induced by the constant contemplation from a distance of an institution the softer aspects of which could not be understood by strangers to its inner life,--but of which the one dominant feature was the bare fact of the bodily ownership of human beings,--the mere existence of the legal right to barter, sell and trade in human-kind. Of the relations between the master and his human chattels, and of the laws governing those relations, except in rare instances, they seemed to be ignorant,--as well, apparently, as of the safeguards with which a humane public sentiment surrounded the treatment of the slave, both by the law and the master.

It is a brief consideration of some of these laws, as they stood upon the statute books of our own state during the earlier years of its history, that we beg to invite your attention.

Under an old Federal ordinance, passed in 1787, for the government of the Northwest Territory, it was provided that in that territory there should be "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude," except of course for the punishment of crime. As the Congressional act of 1798, forming the Mississippi Territory, subjected it to the provisions of this ordinance, we note the somewhat curious fact that in Mississippi, in its incipient territorial organization, slavery was a prohibited institution. However, in the act of 1802, which for the first time provided for the establishment of a government in the Mississippi Territory, this provision alone of that ordinance was excepted, and slavery recognized as legal.

The first provision concerning slavery which we find in our books, after Mississippi became a state, is contained in a clause in our first constitution, adopted in the town of Washington, August 15th, 1817, which provided that the Legislature might establish in each county a Court of Probate, for the discharge of various enumerated functions "and for the trial of slaves." This very first provision touching them seems to look to establishing proper legal means for their control, and in itself bears testimony to the falsity of the notion, which at that time some pretended to entertain, that the whim of the master was the sole law for the governing of the slave, and that the latter had no legal status whatever.

A little further along in the same instrument we find the Legislature delegated with authority to pass laws prohibitive of the introduction into the State of slaves "as merchandise." This apparently evidences the existence, even at that early date, of a spirit of opposition to the business of "slave trading" as a common vocation which easily accounts for the feeling with which the "nigger trader" was regarded by the better classes--those among whom he would look for purchasers of his goods. In this same clause the Legislature is empowered to pass laws to oblige the owner of slaves "to treat them with humanity," to provide for them necessary clothing and provisions, to abstain from all injuries to them extending to "life or limb," and, in case of the failure to comply with the directions of such laws, the slave might be sold to some more humane master. By this instrument it was also expressly provided that the Legislature should never have the power to deprive the slave of the right to an impartial trial by a jury.

I think it proper that we should call to mind these provisions of our first organic law--testifying as they do to the treatment which law and society exacted of the master toward his slave;--but, while we can not fail to be impressed with the spirit of justice and humanity manifested in our early constitution, at a casual reading, some of the succeeding legislative enactments might be regarded as extremely harsh.

But in considering laws of this nature, abhorrent as they may be to our present sense of humane propriety, we must not lose sight of the time in which they were effective, and our judgment must be tempered by a remembrance of the fact that they were operative in a state of society which, while no less refined or lower in its moral tone than our own, yet looked upon criminal laws from a view point radically different from that of today.

The debtor's prison still existed in England,--the stocks and pillory were instruments of common use both here and there,--the public whipping post claimed its daily victims,--the rack and thumb-screw were still applied to refractory witnesses in some of the courts of the old world and there was not yet in all Christendom a country in which women had equal property rights with men,--which, by the way, Mississippi was the first community in the civilized world to confer, and she had not progressed thus far by some twenty odd years.