FOR THE ST. LOUIS ENQUIRIER

No. 1
To the People of Missouri Territory.

FELLOW-CITIZENS,

Nothing is calculated to produce feelings
of deeper mortification and regret, than the 
necessity of withdrawing our confidence and
esteem from those, to whom we have been accustomed
to look up with respect and reverence. 
Such were my feelings towards the house of 
representatives of the United States, (whom from
my infancy, I have been accustomed to contemplate
with sentiments boardering on filial love)
when I was informed that pending the bill for
the admission of this territory into the union, an
amendment was proposed, and actually carried
by a small majority, to impose upon us a novel
and unconstitutional condition. Fortunately for
them and perhaps for us, a redeeming spirit was
found in the senate. They rejected the amendment,
and thereby saved congress from the foul
disgrace of such an act of usurption, and saved
us from the jarring and discord incident to the
necessity of maintaining our rights in defiance
of such usurped authority. Since the amendmet
has failed in the senate, and the bill will
probably pass cleansed of that blot, we shall not,
I hope be called upon, for the painful exercise 
of that republican firmness and persevering 
determination which I know belongs to the people
of this country. Nevertheless, it behoves us to
speak to the people of the union, in the indignant
language of injured freemen; and tell
them how much they are mistaken, in supposing 
that because we inhabit a country once belonging
to the king of Spain, we are the poor remnant
of Spanish depotism. Can it be neccessary
to inform the people of the United States, that
the great mass of our population was born in a 
land of liberty; that we know how to appreciate
our natural and constitutional rights; and
are at all times prepared to maintain and defend 
them? You my fellow citizens, have had 
abundant occasion to remark the gradual
assumption of authority by congress, and the 
encreasing latitude with which they construe the
constitution. So far as it concerns the frontiers;
the same subservient of some of the territories,
and the affectionate acquiesence of others seem
to have led them to the belief, either that we are
ignorant of our rights, or that we are prepared,
on their inimidation, to abandon them. In the 
most gloomy period of the late war, when the
public treasury was empty, and our country
stood in need of the unanimous support of all
her sons, congress extended their revenue laws
to this territory. It was then no time to talk
about constitutional scruples. Our interest was
identified with theirs, and both were at stake.
And knowing that we inherited all the blessings
of the constitution, that the evils we suffered
were but temporary, we would not withhold our
mite from the public service, because we were
denied a representation on the floor of congress.
Yet no politician who has any reputation to lose,
will dare abandon the principles of the revolution,
and affirm that we could constitutionally be
taxed without being represented.

But it has been reserved for the house of 
representatives of the present congress to commit
the most gross and barefaced usurpation that
has yet been attempted. They  have ingrafted
on the bill for out admission into the union, a 
provision that the state constitution shall 
prohibit the further introduction of slavery; and
that all children born of slaves shall be free at
the age of five and twenty years. Bear in 
mind fellow citizens, that the question now
before you is not whether slavery shall be permitted
or prohibited in the future state of Missouri;
but whether you will meanly abandon your
rights, and suffer any earthly power to dictate
the terms of your constitution. The federal
constitution guarantees a republican form of
government to every state, and is itself the 
supreme law of the land. The only question then,
that can arise on the presentation of a new state 
constitution for the approbation of Congress,
are these-- Is it republican? Is it consistent
with the federal constitution? These questions
decided in the affirmative, leave to congress
no latitude of discretion; it becomes their 
bounden duty to receive it. And when they
presume to discuss its details, they transcend
their constitutional limits; they intermeddle
with an affair that does not concern them, and
violate the very law by which they hold their
existence. To submit to that usurped authority 
would be to renounce the right of self-government,
and to subject ourselves to the caprice of
Congress; moulding our institutions according
to their notions of political expediency. For if
they can prescribe one article of our constitution,
they can dictate the whole.

Many of us from long residence without the 
limits of our parent states, in a country where
all our privileges and obligations seem to flow
from the Federal government; have contracted
the habit of regarding the government as the 
fountain of all political power. To such of us
it is difficult to throw off habitual trammels, and 
at once to view our rights in their true, 
constitutional aspect. But there is an easy mode of
testing the principle, plain and intelligible to the
dullest capacity. Congress have no powers
but those expressly given by the constitution;
if we cannot find them there, they do not exist.
The general residum of authority is inherent
in, and is moreover expressly "reserved to the
states respectively, or to the people." The
state of Missouri then, can derive none of its
powers from Congress; all it needs from that
quarter is the means of organization. For it
we hold our right to erect a state government
by virtue of a grant from congress, it necessarily
follows that congress have power to regulate
and apportion the rights contained in that
grant, according to their discretion. They in
effect would make our state constitution and
the people, instead of being free and independent,
would be the slaves of a distant power
acting under orders.

The principles has been long ago established 
and is now sanctified by time, that the people
have the undoubted right to make, alter and
abolish their government according to their will
and pleasure. How shall we get around this 
stubborn principle, which is the master spirit
of our political institutitons, and the very
essence of American liberty? And how shall we
reconcile this indefeasible right of the people of
Missouri to make their own constitution, with
the arrogant pretensions of Congress to dictate
its provisions, and to enforce obedience by 
denouncing the heavy penalty of exclusion from
the federal union? What is a constitution?
It is nothing more nor less than a fundamental 
law establishing a form of government; and in
our country, invariably defines and regulates the 
several departments of governmental power.
It is paramount over the legislature itself; 
circumscribing its authority to particular objects
and even directing the mode of its existence.
From the very nature of law and government,
the power that enacts a constitution and binds
the legislature of a country, must of neccessity be
sovereign; for it were ridiculous to say that a 
power in itself secondary and dependent can do
an act which when done becomes primitive and
absolute. If then congress have power to make
our constitution, they are our sovereigns. If
we have power to make it for ourselves, we are
as we shold be, free and independent. I am
sure that no Missourian will display a spirit so
servile and an ignorance so gross, as to strive
to reconcile the independece of the one with
the power of the other.

The accession of a new state to the federal
union is not an act done by congress only. It
is a compact between the admitted state and
the states previously members of the confederation.
And the very power of forming a compact
whereby we acquire constitutional rights
and assume constitutional obligations, irresistibly
implies previous sovereignty and
independence. For if at the moment of admission,
we are still dependent, the compact is, on
our part, incomplete, and requires the sanction
of the governing power. And if it derives its
force from any power but ourselves, it is not binding.
The government of the U. States is a 
confederate government, the very essence of which
is that it is formed by compact between several
separate independent states--They must
be separate; otherwise they would form one
consolidated government, and not a confederacy--
They must be independent, otherwise
they would have no power to form such
a compact. Hence it follows that every new
state must of necessity be sovereign and
independent before it can, on constitutional
principles, become a member of the federal
family. Suppose a constitution should be formed 
diametrically opposite to conditions 
attempted to be imposed by Congress, and that
that body should refuse their approbation; what
more could they do than simply refuse us
admission into the union? Would that refusal
throw us back into our former state of dependent
vassallage? I hope and believe there is no
man west of the Mississipi, prepared to
advance the preposterous idea that such refusal
on the part of congress, could destroy an established
form of government, and annul a constitution
which the people, by virtue of INHERENT
right have made and chosen for themselves.

I am aware that faint hearted politicians,
dreading the consequences of a misunderstanding
with the federal government, might be
induced, contrary to their better judgement, to
favor the erronous idea that a new state derives
its independence from admission into the union.
I would ask such men, if any there be among
us, (which God forbid) how, and at what time
the old United States became free? Was it by
the treaty of '33? Was it by the adoption of
the federal constitution? No. It was by the 
glorious declaration of independece. Nothing
else is necessary to make a nation legally free
but that she should so declare herself; and there
is no possible mode of declaring that fact so
solemn and imposing as the assumption of
sovereignty and the adoption of a constitution--
Whether she can maintain herself in the
enjoyment of that freedom is another question--a
question to be decided not by argument, but by
physical force. It is most happy for us that we
have no reason to fear such a crisis. The people
of this territory possess too fond an affection
for the principles of the constitution, and too
strong a sense of the inestimable belssings it is 
calculated to afford, to permit them incautiously
to jeopardize their right to a participation in
its benefits, or to give the federal government
constitutional grounds of offence. And the
people of the United States are, I trust, actuated
by a spirit of justice and obedience to the
constitution too strong to admit of a wish to do us
wrong. For my own part, I consider the right
of admission into the union as one of the greatest
and dearest privileges of Americans, falling
but little short of the right of sovereignty and
self-government. That we now have that right
is susceptible of demonstration.

This much, fellow-citizens, I have ventured
to lay before you, by way of introducing a more
regular and analytical investigation of this question
in its various bearings. I have as yet said
nothing of the treaty of session, which forms a
strong link in my chain of argument, and which
alone is sufficient to defeat the usurped authority
of the house of representatives.

You shall hear from me again.

HAMPDEN

P.S. Since writing the above, I am informed
that the bill has failed, by reason of the 
disagreement of the two houses of congress on the
above question.				H.