Southern recorder. (Milledgeville, Ga.) 1820-1872, March 21, 1820, Image 1
SOUTHERN
RECORDER.
VOL. I.
MILLEDGEVILLE, TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1820.
No. 6.
MR. VAN DYKE'S SPEECH
ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION.
FRIDAY,JANUARY 28.
Mr. President—Conscious that I can
not aild to th e force °f arguments which
Lave been already urged against the pro
posed amendment, with unrivalled pow
ers of eloquence, nothing but a sense of
duty, growing out of the peculiar situa
tion in which I stand in relation to this
question, could induce me to trespass on
the patience ofthe Senate. This sub
ject, sir, 1ms produced much excitement
in different sections of the union ; that
excitement has pervaded the state which
I have the honor in part to represent;
there, too, public meetings have been
called; opinions in favor of the propos
ed restriction have been expressed, and
are published under the sanction of
names deservedly esteemed for talents
and integrity. The legislature of that
state also, in their wisdom, have resolv
ed that the proposed restriction is com
patible with the constitution, and ought
to be adopted as a measure of sound po
licy, That resolution is now upon your
table. The opinion of that honorable
legislature justly merits, and will ever
command my sincere rospect. To their
confidence in me I am indebted for a
place in this dignified assembly: to de
serve and retain the good opinion of that
honorable body will ever be my highest
ambition. But, sir, as it is my misfor
tune to differ from them in sentiment on
this great constitutional question, 1 am
not satisfied to give a silent vote.
The honorable gentleman from Penn
sylvania who moved the amendment, re
marked that it was a question of great
importance between the people of the
Uuited States and those of Missouri. It
is sir, a question of importance, because
it involves the construction of the great
charter of our liberties. The zeal with
which the amendment has been urged
and opposed evinces that it excites more
than common interest. A question touch
ing the extent of powers delegated to
Congress bv the constitution iuu3t ever
be deeply interesting; for in its decision
are implicated the rights reserved to the
people, and the sovereignty ofthe states,
it is not, however, anticipated that the
declaration of independence w ould be
resorted to as furnishing a key to the
construction of the constitution of 1787,
or that arguments would be drawn from
that'tource to give color to a claim of
power under the latter instrument.—
Much less was it expected that the re
cital of abstract theoretic principles, in
a national manifesto in ’76, would be
gravely urged at this day to prove that
involuntary servitude does not lawfully
exist within the United States. To these
principles the honorable gentlema^ has
referred, with an air of triumphant con
fidence, reminding us that the whole
people then united in proclaiming to the
world, '‘that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator
With certain unalienable rights ; that a-
mong these are life, liberty, and the pur
suit of happiness.” Sir, these princi
ples are correct, and intelligible in the
political sense in which they were used
by the statesmen who signed that mani
festo. They are the received doctrines
of the schools, in relation to man as he
i3 supposed to exist in the fancied state
of nature. But that individuals, enter
ing into society, must give up a share of
liberty to preserve the rest, is a truth
that requires no demonstration. Those
principles formed correct premises from
from which to draw the conclusion,
41 That to secure these rights, govern
meats are instituted among men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the
governed; that the people have a right
to alter or abolish one form of govern
ment and to institute new government.”
They also formed correct premises from
which (under existing oppression) was
drawu the inference, “that these United
Colonies are, and of right out to be, free
and independent states.” But, Mr.
President, the distinguished statesmen
who pledged to each other “theirlives
their fortunes, and their sacred honor,’
in support of that declaration, were not
visionary theorists; they are men of
sound, practical, common sense, and
from the premises assumed, arrived at
sound practical conclusions. When we
call to mind the state'of this young conn
try at that awful moment, struggling for
the right of self-government, engaged in
war with the most powerful nation of Eu
rope, pressed on all sides with accumu-
tiiiing difficulties and dangers, can it be
credited that the declaration of indepen
dence was designed to dissolve the bonds
of social order throughout the states—to
reduce all men to a state of nature, and
to set at large a host of slaves, the readi
est instruments to be employed by the
enemy in the work of destruction, in the
very bosom of the nation? Think you,
® ,r » that it was meant to invoke the gen-
lus of universal emancipation, and to
Proclaim liberty and equality to every
human being who breathed the air, and
* r °d the soil of this new republic ? The
a ‘th of that man who can believe this is
tunch stronger than mine. No, sir, that
j^anifesto was not intended, was not nn-
ergtood to abolish or to alter any law
then existing in any state for the security
of property, or for the regulation of their
internal concerns. Self-preservation, a
regard for their own personal safety and
that of their families, and a regard for
the best interests of the nation, forbade
those sages to do such an act. But, sir,
were slaves liberated in any state ofthe
union by virtue of the declaration of in
dependence? Never. On the contrary,
wherever emancipation has beeu effect
ed, it has been by the authority of state
laws ; and every state has assumed, and
invariably exercised, at its discretion,
the right of legislating about this class of
persons, down to the present day. Penn
sylvania, so justly npplnuded for her be
nevolence towards these persons, did not
admit that they obtained freedom under
the declaration of independence, for she
undertook to loose their chains gradual
ly, by her own legislative authority, in
1780; and, even at this moment, sonic
are held in involuntary servitude in that
state. In truth, sir, we cannot advance
a step in the history of the revolution
without meeting evidence that there
were in the nation two separate classes
—freemen, and those who were not free.
Consult the articles of confederation,
emanating immediately from the act of
independence and signed by many of the
same men who signed that declaration,
and, in article 4, “free inhabitants of
each state,” and “ free citizens,” desig
nate the persons who were to enjoy pri
vileges and immunities under that go
vernment, plainly indicating that there
was another class of persons in the coun
try, who were not free, and not entitled
to those privileges. Consult the treaty
of 1783, which acknowledged the inde
pendence of these states, and you will
read a stipulation, on the part of the Bri
tish, for the restoring “ negroes or other
property ofthe American inhabitants.”
Another war with the same power has
been recently waged, and is happily ter
minated by the treaty of Ghent, in which
you again find a stipulation for the res
toration of “slaves or other property.”
Sir, the federal constitution, whose pow
ers are now under examination, in pro
viding for the delivering up of fugitives
from labour, held to service under the
laws of a state, recognizes as well the
existence of such a class of persons, as
that they are held under the laws of
the state. Open your statute book,
examide the different acts which have
been passed at different periods, in
which it became necessary to notice this
class of persons, and you shall be forced
to acknowledge that Congress lias enact
ed laws recognizing them as property ;
sometimes describing them as fugitives
from labour, at oihers, calling them
slaves. Thus, sir, the act of February
1703, provides for executing il e con
stitutional provision relative to fugitives
from labour. The statute erecting Lou
isiana into two territories, in 1804, in
the same 10th section, which was read
by the honorable gentleman from Penn
svlvauia, speaks in plainer language
where it provides, “that no slave
slaves shall directly or indirectly be in
troduced into said territory, except by a
citizen of the Uuited States, re mono
into said territory for actual settlement,
and being at the time of such removal,
bona fide owner of such slave or slaves.”
This section, sir, establishes two facts :
First, that a citizen ofthe United States
may be bona tide owner of slaves. Se
cond, that such citizen had the right of
removing with his slaves from any state,
into the newly acquired territory of Lou
isiana.
By the act ofthe 2d March, 1807, to
prohibit the slave trade after the first of
January following, the 9th section regu
lates the carrying of slaves coastwise,
from one port to another in the United
States, and prescribes the form of an oath
to be taken by the captain ofthe vessel
and the owner or shipper ofthe slave;
a part of which oath is, “that under the
laws ofthe state they are held to service
or labour.” From this cursory review,
Mr. President, l am justified in assuming
that the articles of confederation, public
treaties, the federal constitution, repeat
ed declarations of Congress in statutes
passed under that constitution, connect
ed with the history of the country, and
the uniform course ol state legislation
establish incontrovertibly that involun
tary servitude has existed, and yet exists
in the United States, and has ever been
universally acknowledged to be a subject
of state jurisdiction. Yes, sir, however
painful the reflection, truth compels us
to acknowledge that the evil still exists ;
it has been entailed upon the nation by
the avarice of Britain, forcing upon her
infant colonies a slave population, against
their will, against their humble petitions,
against their spirited remonstrances.
' [Mr. Roberts rose to explain, and
said he should not contend that slavery
does not exist in the old United States,
but should insi-t that Congress had a right
to prohibit it in the territories, and to
impose on Missouri the terms proposed
by the amendment.]
Mr. President, the honorable gentle
man in opening the debate, did assume
the declaration of independence as the
broad ground of Lis argument. From
his course of reasoning, I was impress
ed with the belief that he meant to en
force those principles in their full ex
tent, and his declaration to me person
ally a few minutes since, that he intend
ed to go the whole length of those prin
ciples, confirmed the impression. But,
sir, as such intention is now disavowed,
I forbear to press the argument further.
I proceed, sir, to examine the consti
tutional question which the amendment
presents. Happily, Mr. President, we
are not investigating the principles of a
government whose origin is buried in the
rubbish of antiquity—whose powers are
to be collected from history or tradition
—which relies on precedent and usage
to give color to the usurpation of power
in every emergency: acquiring new vi
gor from every succeeding precedent;
and often from precedents created in
times of foreign war and domestic vio
lence. Happily for this nation, its con
stitution is a written instrument, framed
in a time of peace, with care and delibe
ration, by the most enlightened men,
and penned with all the accuracy and
precision that serious thought and calm
reflection could ensure. Its history is
brief, and known to all: the time and
manner of its creation, the circumstances
attending its adoption are recent and fa
miliar. Many ofthe enlightened states
men whose talents and labors were de
voted to this great work, yet live to share
the honors which their grateful country
bestows, as a reward due to their distin
guished merit.
We must remember, then, Mr. Provi
dent, that it is a written compact, thus
created, thus adopted, whose powers we
examine. To ensure a correct result,
it is proper to bring into view certain
rules of reason and common sense, ap
plicable to the construction of all writ
ten instruments. That we must look to
the intention of the parties, as the polar
star, is the great leading rule of construc
tion. This rule applies with equal force
to the contracts of individuals in private
life—to compacts between sovereign, in
dependent states, as public treaties, and
to a compact between the people and go
vernment, in the form of a constitution.
To ascertain the intention ofthe parties,
and to execute the compact in good faith,
the duty of an honest statesman. The
intention, sir, is most naturally and safe
ly collected from the language and ex
pressions used in relation to the subject
matter. If the expressions he so indefi
nite or inartificial as to leave the inten
tion doubtful, a comparison maybe made
of different parts of the instrument for
elucidation, and from that comparison an
intention may he inferred, not incom
patible with what is plainly and certain
ly expressed. Should doubts still remain,
the mind recurs to the situation ofthe
parties at the time of the compact, and
judges, from the known condition ofthe
parties, how far the proposed construc
tion may comport with reason and good
sense. These arc means used, under
different circumstances, to arrive at
truth. In examining a claim of power
under this constitution, when we recur
to the specific enumeration of powers,
attend to the prohibitions there written,
and read that jealous dec'aration ol the
tenth amendment, that all powv.i nut
granted is reserved, the conclusion is ir
resistible, that the United States' govern
ment is one of limited powers ; that, al
though supreme and sovereign as to all
matters within its legitimate sphere of
action, yet it cannot claim a general, un
limited sovereignty. '! lie people have
created state governments also, and have
delegated to them other portions of pow
er within the state limits, for the regu
lation and management ol their internal
domestic concerns. A British states
man may boast of the omnipotence of a
British parliament; but an American
statesman will never claim the attribute
of omnipotence lor an American Con
gress. Need 1 adduce any authority to
establish this position ? 1 refer to the
opinion of ihe highest judicial tribunal
in Ibis nation. “ This government (say
the Supreme Court in the celebrated
United States’ Bank cause,) is acknowl
edged by all to be one of enumerated
powers. The principle that it ran ex
ercise only the powers granted to it,
would seem too apparent to have requir
ed to be enforced by all those arguments
which its enlightened friends, while it
was depending before the people, found
it necessary to urge. That principle
is universally admitted.” And, again:
“ We admit, as all must admit, that the
powers of the government are limited,
and that its limits arc uot to be trans
cended.” With this agree the opinion
of distinguished statesmen, addressed to
the people, while the constitution w
under consideration. Mr. Madison, in
No. 45 of the Federalist, says, “The
powers delegated by the proposed con
stitution to the federal government, are
few and defined ; those which are to re
main to the state governments, are nu
merous and indefinite.”
To the advocates of power, in any in
stance, the people may with propriety
say, shew the grant of the power in the
constitution. It is incumbent on you to
shew either that it is gruuted as a sub
stantive, independent power, or that it is
incidental to such a power, by being ue
ccssary and proper to be used ns a mean
to curry such power into execution. If
you cannot shew this, your claim is had,
your prevention must fail. In the pre
sent instance you search in vain among
the enumerated powers of Congress:
examine the whole catalogue, with the
the most scrutinizing eye, it is not found
there: proceed to the section which
enumerates all that is prohibited to tho
states, nothing there written can furnish
a plausible ground to infer that such a
power was intended to be delegated to
Congress. Itisnotthena substantive,
independent power, specified and defin
ed in the general enumeration of powers ;
nor can it, in my view, be raised by ne
cessary implication. Can it with anyco-
lor of right be asserted, as a power ne
cessary arid proper for carrying into ef
fect any of the specified powers ? Here,
sir, the advocates ofthe amendment are
equally embarrassed. With which of
ofthe specified powers is it connected ■
which of them calls upon it for aid, or
which of them can receive any aid from
it? Is it necessary to aid in laying and
collecting taxes, borrowing money, or
regulating commerce ? Sir, you shall
name, in succession, every power enu
merated in this instrument, examine and
consider them in all their various bear
ings and relations to the interests and
concerns of this nation, and reason and
cundor shall compel you to acknow ledge
that the power now claimed to impose
this restriction, has not the remotest con
nection with any of them.
But, Mr. President, it is contended
that, though not expressly granted, yet
the power may be fairly inferred. It is
somewhat unfortunate, however, that
the friends of this amendment cannot
agree among themselves as to the article
ami section of the constitution from which
it may be inferred. One honorable gen
tleman points to the 9th section of the 1st
article: “ The migration or importation
of such persons as any of the states now
existing shall think proper to admit shall
not he prohibited by Congress prior to
the year 1UU8.” lie contends that the
persons here referred to are slaves, and
that, as the prohibition was limited to a
period of time now past, Congress may
now interdict the migration of citizens,
with their slaves, from one state to ano
ther, or from the old states to the new
state of Missouri. The attempt to infer
so important a power from this prohibit
ory clause, is novel, unprecedented, and
dangerous; and, in my humble opinion,
is contrary to the genius ofthe constitu
tion, containing uu enumeration ol' the
delegated powers, which was penned
with care and precision, and cannot rea
sonably be presumed to leave such a
power to be extracted from a prohibition.
Such inference is, therefore, denied.—
Further, sir, it is not granted that, “ tni
gration” was intended to apply to 1 slaves,’
though ‘ importation’ does ; having a re
ference to the general power of regulat
ing commerce, by virtue of which Con
gress might have imposed a prohibitory
dutv i n the importation ot slaves, at
their discretion. This right was, there
fore, restrained, lor a certain time, at
the instance ofthe southern slates. But
the permitted duty is confined to the
“ importation,” leaving the “migration”
free. Migration also, as was justly re
marked by au honorable gentleman from
Georgia, "implies free agency, and the
exercise of will, in the persons migrat
ing, which cannot correctly be predicat
ed of a slave. But, sir, even if the word
“ migration” be construed to apply to
slaves, as well as the word “importa
tion” in that clause, yet 1 deny that it
was intended to refer to the several states,
or to give Congress the power at will to
prevent the removal of a citizen, with
his family and property, (and slaves may
come under both descriptions,) from one
state to another. The term migration,
associated with importation, must be tak
en to refer to a foreign country or terri
tory, as the “ terminus n quo:” the mi
gration begins, and therefore applies on
ly to foreigners, not to inhabitants of the
United States. In this sense it is used
in the declaration ofindependence, which
furnishes u standard construction in a
prior state paper, to which we may safe
ly refer, and most probably the term was
transplanted from that instrument into
this constitution. In the recital there
of grievances which the colonies had
suffered at the hands of the king, we
read : “He has endeavored to prevent
the population of these states ; for that
purpose obstructing the laws for the na
turalization of foreigners—refusing to
pass others to encourage their migration
hither ;” evidently meaning the migra
tion of foreigners from a foreign country
to the states, and as evidently excluding
slaves, who were not persons to whom
naturalization laws applied.
Surely, sir, a power to prohibit free
men from removing trom one state to an
other, with their families and property,
ought not to depend on abtruse reason
ing, or uncertain inference, or be raised
bv implication in a written constitution.
\Vh:: is it, but a power to create a state-
prison of a slave-holding state ; to incar
cerate the citizens of the southern states
with their black population, to reduce
them to the ruinous alternative of aban
doning their lands, as the only means of
escaping from a state of confinement the
mostodious that can be imagined ? Think
you, sir, that such wus the intention of
those who signed that instrument and re
commended it to their fellow citizens ?
Think you, sir, that the people of the
southern states, in adopting the constitu
tion, meant to delegate such a power to
Congress? It would be a waste of time
to reason upon the question. Sir, it is
incredible that such could be the inten
tion of the parties to that compact; and
strangely w ill it he distorted and pervert
ed, if the term “ migration,” in this pro
hibitory clause, can be made the basis
on which to raise this colossal power.—
Should such a construction prevail, la
mentably short, indeed, I fear will he the
duration of this boasted palladium of
American liberty.
Other honorable gentlemen imagine
they can find a warrant for imposing this
restriction in the third section ofthe 4th
article: “Congress shall have power to
dispose of, and make all needful rules &.
regulations respecting the territory or
other property of the United States.” In
uisivering this pretension, it is not ne
cessary to deny to Congtess all the pow
er there expressed over the territory of
the United Stales ; and if Congress were
now engaged in making rules and regu
lations respecting such territory, this
clause would supportthcclaitu of power.
But, sir, so far from legislating, to dis
pose of, or make regulations respecting
territory, the bid on your table provides
for relinquishing the territorial govern
ment ; raises the people of Missouri to
the dignity of self government; empow
ers them to form a constitution ; to as
sume the character of an independent
state, and, as such, to take equal rank
with the other states of this Union.—
Such a hill is directly opposed to the last
recited clause, and therefore that clause
can give no color to the exercise of a
power, designed to operate not on the
territory, but on the state, at and from
tlie moment of its birth.
It has been further insisted, Mr. Pre
sident, that the provison, that “new
states tilay he admitted by the Congress
into this Union,” vests Congress with a
discretionary power to admit or refuse,
and, therefore, that Congress may pre
scribe terms and conditions of admission.
Sir, the premises may be true, the con
clusion may be false. It is not denied
that the word “ may,” in its ordinary
sense, imports a discretion to act or not;
but in this clause it can give no power
beyond the exercise of the will to admit
or refuse admission ; and cannot, by fair,
reasonable construction, confer a power
to impose terms which impair the sove
reignty ofthe slate to be admitted. In
the exercise of a power derived from a
political compact, or created by law, in
the use of which others besides the actor
have an interest, it is the rule of reason
and sense, that, to be exercised fairly, it
must he exercised not capriciously, but
with sound discretion ; always regard
ing the just rights ofthose who are inte
rested. The people of Missouri-having
an immediate interest in the exercise of
tins power, claim udmission under the
guarantee of a solemn treaty of cession,
which provides that “ the inhabitants of
the ceded territory shall he incorporat
ed in the Union of the United States;”
and admitted, as soon as possible, accor
ding to the principles of the federal con
stitution, to the enjoyment of all the
rights, advantages, and immunities of ci
tizens of the United States. Under this
treaty, part of the ceded territory has
been admitted as a state, without such
restriction as is now attempted to be im
posed on Missouri ; ami, so far, the trea
ty bus been expounded and executed in
good faith. This treaty, solemnly ratifi
ed, appeals to the honor and justice of
the nation for faithful execution, as soon
as possible. The United States stand in
the character of a trustee for the people
of the ceded territory, and, whenever
they attain a capacity to accept asurren
der of the trust, the surrender should be
promptly made, and the estate deliver
ed up, unimpaired and unfettered by
conditions and restriction.! not contem
plated in the deed by which the trust
was created. If, then, sir, Missouri has
attained the competent degree of popu
lation and strength to entitle her to self-
government, according to the principles
ofthe federal constitution, as the bill on
your tabic admits, Congress is bound to
admit, her into the Union without delay,
as freely as other parts of the ceded ter
ritory has been admitted, without impos
ing a restriction that impairs her state
sovereignty; since neither the constitu
tion nor the treaty grants power to im
pose that restriction.
This power then, so strenuously con
tended for, is not found among the spe
cified or enumerated powers delegated
to Congress ; it is not a power which
can be claimed as necessary and proper
to carry into execution any specified
the different parts of the Constitutiofi oil
which its advocates rely.
But, Mr. President, instead of being
surprised that such a power is not founa
in the charter, it would be cause of in
expressible surprise if it were found
there ; for 1 am convinced the people
never designed to grant it. This char
ter was designed to govern and regulate
the great political national concerns of
the Union, not to interfere with the in
ternal regulations, the private or domes
tic concerns of the states, Such is the
opinion of the distinguished statesmen,
to whom I before referred. Mr. Madi
son, in the same number of the Federal
ist before cited, after informing the peo
ple that the powers delegated to the fe
deral government are few and defined—
those that remain to the states numerous
and indefinite, adds, “ the former will be
exercised principally on external objects,
ns war, peace, negociation, and foreign
commerce, witli which Inst, the powers
of taxation will for the most part be con
nected. The power reserved to the se
veral states will extend to nil the objects,
which, in the ordinary course of affairs,
concern the lives, liberties, and proper
ties ofthe people, and the internal order,
improvement. &. prosperity of the state;”
and, in the succeeding number, speaking
of the stale governments, he adds, “By
the superintending care of these, all the
more domestic and personal interests of
the people will be regulated and provid
ed for.” The same distinction is repeat
ed by Mr; Hamilton, in No. 84. “ But
a minute detail of particular rights is cer
tainly far less applicable to a Constituti
on like that under consideration, which
is merely intended to regulate the gene
ral political interests of the nation, than
to a Constitution which has the regula
tion of every species of personal and pri
vate concerns.”
Sir, it must he admitted by every states
man, that this Constitution never was design-
d to have, jurisdiction over the domestic con
cerns of the people, in the several slates. No,
air, these are wisely left exclusively to th«
state sovereignties, as their natural guardians,
The proposed amendment, if adopted, will
regulate, by an irrevocable provision in a sta
tute, one of the domestic relations of tho
people of the state of Missouri. Can this ho
denied ? Need ! name to this Senate, what
are appropriately termed the domestic rela
tions of civil life? They are those of hus-
nnd and wife—to which happily succeeds
that of parent and child, too often followed
by that oLe.tia.ndLc.n-.V.-a's.rd^-.’i.iih. sJl .edt-i-efe- -
is connected that of master and servant; ei
ther by voluntary ,or involuntary servitude.
These, sir, with peculiar propriety and truth,
are denominated “ the domestic relations.’'
They exist in the bosom of the family—in
the bumble walks of private life, and have
no connection with the general political inte
rests of the Union. If Congress can rcgtilaUj
one, why notall of these domestic relations'?
They all stand on the same level, and if one
he within the grasp of your power, what shall
exempt or protect the rest ? Even the con
tract of marriage and the period of reieas*
from guardianship may become the subject
of discussion in some future Congress, on
the admission of some future state. If such
a power exist, who shall stay its hand, or
prescribe its limits ? Sir, the proposed re
striction, is a direct invasion of the sovereign
ty of the state; it will wrest from Missouri
that pow er which belongs to every state in
the Union, to regulate its domestic con
cerns, according to the will of the peo
ple. But further, Mr. President, it can
not escape observation, that, to accom
plish the proposed object, Congress
must invent a new mode of legislation—
a legislation in perpetuity. In the com
mon course of legislation, every law is
subject to be altered, or repealed, ac
cording to the wisdom and discretion of
any future legislature. Here you tran
scend the power of any legislative body
known to a republic—you impose by sta
tute a restriction to be and r-main irre
vocable forever. To such a dilemma the u-
surpation of power leads. What then, Mr.
President, is the true character of this bill,
with such an amendment? Not simply a
law—hut a law to make, in part, a Constitu
tion for the future state, of Missouri: nay,
more, to make her Constitution in that point
unalterable forever, and place it beyond the
power of the |>cople. Is not this depriving
the people of their : cknowledged rights, and
the state of part of its legitimate sovereignty?
If Congress can thus, by anticipation, make
part of a Constitution for a state, and force
it upon her as a condition precedent to her
admission, why may not Congress make o-
tlier parts of her Constitution under the form
of other conditions—the power is the same,
the right is equal. If, sir, the people of Mis
souri be thus compelled to mould their state
Constitution according to the mandate of
Congress, must not Missouri enter the Union
shorn of Borne of those beams of sovereignty
that encircle her sister states—can she be
said to stand upon an equal footing with
them ? Let truth and candor answer.
But, sir, to this objection it is replied that
similar terms were prescribed to the states
of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. True. Re
collect, however, that the condition of those
states was, in every respect, different from
the condition of Missouri. The ordinance of
1787, passed by Congress, under the articles
of confederation, was tendered to the setticiS
in the North-Western Territory, (whether
with or without authority, is immaterial now)
as a compact and agreement. The settlers
there knew of this compact—made their ar
rangements accordingly—society ([here waa
formed and moulded on the principles of
that ordinance, and was thus gradually pre
pared to adopt the same principles in the
power, and, in my opinion cannot yea-
sonablj ho raised by implication h' oin [ stances, the terms were proposed, withoqp