"They Are Very Much Interested in Obtaining an Unlimited Slavery": Rethinking the Expansion of Slavery in the Louisiana Purchase Territories, 1803-1805

Abstract

By late 1804, discontent with United States government was growing among white inhabitants of newly acquired Louisiana Purchase territories. That fall, the representatives elected by of their respective districts in Upper Louisiana met in St. Louis protest their new territorial government: or, as they deemed it, privation of some of dearest rights enjoyed by freemen! The freemen especially feared that United States might deprive them of their right buy and hold slaves. They had good reason worry. The host of restrictions Congress placed on Louisiana slavery seemed calculated abolish slavery at a future day altogether.1In 1804 a Republican-controlled Congress defied testy demands of white Louisianans, recommendations of Thomas Jefferson, and interests of southern slaveholders by prohibiting both international and domestic slave trades Louisiana Purchase territories. White Louisianans from New Orleans St. Louis reacted these restrictions, which seemed tantamount a plan of gradual abolition, by insisting that they would consent American rule only if provided guarantees for slavery. Fearful that white Louisianans might act on their threats of rebellion and disunion, Congress quietly failed renew bulk of restrictions on slavery following year.The historical literature on slavery and expansion in early republic makes it difficult understand causes and significance of restrictions passed by Congress in 1804 and then rescinded in 1805. Historians generally agree that southern politicians controlled debates over expansion of slavery. Upper South planters defended expansion because it opened new markets for their surplus slaves, promising relief from their fearfully large slave populations and much needed income supplement their declining fortunes. Deep South planters, ready threaten disunion at first sign of dreaded entering wedge, resisted efforts restrict slavery's growth in Northwest territories. Southern politicians like Jefferson could afford temporize on expansion because, unlike discredited New England Federalists, northern Republicans proved unwilling challenge slaveholders on expansion because of fears of upsetting their fragile, bisectional party.2 When forced legislate for Louisianas in 1804, federal government supposedly did about slavery, permitting it to continue in Louisiana under American rule virtually as it had under Spanish and French rule.3The protests of white Louisianans demonstrate that Congress did something rather than nothing about slavery in Louisianas. Moreover, Louisiana slavery laws of 1804 involved much more than southern intransigence overwhelming northern Republican indifference in halls of Congress. While framing legislation for Louisiana Purchase territories it became clear that a majority in Congress might favor halting expansion of slavery west of Mississippi River. Equally important, antislavery wishes of some congressmen had compete with larger concerns for incorporating Louisianas peacefully and permanently into American Union. For Congress, securing Louisianas, and with it New Orleans and Mississippi River, remained key securing entire trans-Appalachian West. Fears centering on uncertain future of Louisianas in Union and ability of United States compete in power politics of territorial hegemony in Mississippi Valley limited how far certain congressmen were willing restrict slavery there.4Any plan for prohibiting slavery in Louisiana Purchase had involve two elements. First, Congress had deny white Louisianans access additional slaves. The Louisiana Ordinance of 1804 prohibited further introduction of any slaves territories, except by a citizen of United States, removing into said Territory for actual settlement, and being, at time of such removal, bona fide owner of such slave or slaves. …