NO. V

To the People of Missouri

FELLOW CITIZENS,

When I undertook to prove that Congress
have no power to make any part of your
Constitution, a general outline was given of the
course intended to be pursued in the argument.
After considering the subject as it is affected by 
the constitution itself, and by the fundamental
principles of our state and federal governments,
and having demonstrated, I think most clearly
ly, the non-existence of any such power, I come
to consider our rights as guaranteed by the
treaty of cession. As I consider the case
assumed at the commencement of this series,
clearly made out, on constitutional principles, 
this number would have been dispensed with,
but for the pledge that has been given the
public for in appearance, happily, for the people
of American, the great principles of government
are so accurately defined as dearly cherished;
and a knowledge of them as generally diffused
that it is hardly possible a gross infraction of
our rights can be perpetuated without being
susceptible of palpable and virious demonstration;
and happier still that we live in a country where
usurpation, instead of growing by practice into
rightful power, needs only detection to be
destroyed.

The third article of the treaty of cession provides
that "the inhabitants of the ceded territory
shall be incorporated into the union of the
states and admitted as soon as possible according
to the principles of the federal constitution,
to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages
and immunities of citizens of the United States, 
and in the mean time they shall be maintained
and protected in the full enjoyment of their
liberty, property and the religion which they
profess." Now, with regard to incorporation
into the union, the treaty admits of but one
possible construction viz: the ceded territory
must be formed into states and admitted into
the confederation, equal in all respects to the
original states; for the people of the ceded 
territory cannot enjoy "all the rights, advantages
and immunities of citizens of the United States"
unless they belong to individual states forming
the union. Unless they be citizens of a free,
sovereign, independent state, they cannot form
an integral part of the union; they cannot vote
for federal officers; they cannot be represented
in Congress: they cannot aid in governing the
country; and these are the dearest rights of
citizenship, rights which every good American
would sooner die than abandon.

As we cannot be admitted to the enjoyment
of the rights, thus guaranteed, without having
previously become a state, we must first erect a
state government, and having put ourselves in
a condition to enjoy the rights secured to us,
demand of Congress the performance of their
treaty stipulations.

By the terms of the treaty we are entitled to
"all the rights" of American citizens; and
the right of choosing for themselves and making
their own constitution is the greatest and
most inviolable right belonging to American
citizens. The treaty, therefore, guarantees the
right of making our own constitution in all its
parts. If Congress can make any part of it, in
that part the people of Missouri can bare no
voice--If Congress can make any one part, they
can make any other part--they can make the
whole. And thus "the inhabitants of the ceded
territory" to whome the treaty guarantees "all
the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens
of the United States" becomes the veriest
political slaves, divested of the only right which
gives value to citizenship--the right of 
governing themselves. 

Our incorporation into the union must take
place "according to the principles of the federal
constitution." Is it according to those 
principles that congress can undertake to frame the
constitution of a state? If so, the order of nature
is changed, and the creature can make the
creator; for the federal constitution is but the
creature of the states; and when Missouri
becomes a member of the confederation, that
constitution, so far as it concerns her, will derive
all its force from her enactment; for no other
earthly power can extend its juridiction over
us. We must ratify it, or it is never our law.
Our incorporation into the union, and admission
to the rights of citizenship, must be (following
the terms of the treaty) "as soon as possible."
What I understand by this phrase, is no physical
or moral, but politcally possibility; that is,
the ceded territory shall be admitted to the
enjoyment of all the rights mentioned in the treaty,
as soon as it has acquired a sufficient population
to admit of a subdivision into states of
sufficient strength and of proportionate size;
and as soon as the old inhabitants have had time,
by probationary experience, to understand and
appreciate the excellence of republication
institutions.

It seems to be universally conceded that, in
all these particulars we are now ripe for
admission. If we take as a criterion, the number,
wealth and intelligence of the population in
some of the newly admitted states, we find
Missouri fully their equal. And, as far as the
national sentiment can be gathered from any
thing short of an act of Congress, we have it in
our favor on this point; for the Missouri bill
passed both houses of the national legislature,
with all its features, except the attempted
usurpation against which we are now contending.

All the power that Congress can pretend to
exercise over this territory is derived from the
treaty. They claimed it, and took it by the 
treaty alone; and every stipulation on their
part forms a part of the consideration for the
grant. Indeed the obligation to fulfill every
article of their engagements is as strong as is
their right to claim the country; and an abosulute
refusal to execute their part of the contract
would be equivalent to an abandonment of all
claim to the ceded territory. It has been said 
that as France and the U. States are the only
parties to the treaty, it is a matter between them
only, and that we have no right to insist upon
the performance of any of its conditions,
although made exclusively for our benefit. I had
not thought that any American politician was
so far gone in the arts of treacherous casuistry,
as seriously to contend that the U. States are
absolved from the filfillment of their solemn
engagements, because France has no adequate 
interest to make her insist on their fulfillment. Yet,
supposing such an interset to exist would any
man say that a failure on the part of the United
States would not be a just cause of war? If the
failure would be a just cause of war against the
union, does it not follow that the United States
are bound to execute the treaty?

Many objections were taken to this treaty at
the time it was made, and of all its provisions,
the third article, under which we claim, was
considered most consonant to the principles of
the constitution, and was the only provision on
which the advocates of the treaty then rested
in defence.

It was then a matter of much doubt whether
the United States could constitutionally acquire
and hold foreign territory. It seems inconsistent
with the genius of the federal government
to hold provinces under indefinite subjection;
certainly the constitution makes no specific 
grant of such a power, and I have yet to learn
to what power specifically granted this power
of holding provinces would attach itself as a 
necessary incident. But these areguments might
be disposed with, for the treaty itself is, by
positive conditional provision, the supreme
law of the land, a law to Congress as well as
to individuals, a law which no power in the 
government can repeal or modify. It is true that
when an act of Congress is necessary to put in
operation the provisions of a treaty, Congress
might if they were wicked enough to do so
defeat the operations of the treaty by refusing the
necessary preparations. But they can do it only
as an individual can commit murder; both
acts would be dishonest and illegal and the only
difference would be that in the case of the
murder, the law has provided an adequate sanction--
he attones for his crime with his life;
but for those who have broken the public faith,
who have destroyed national confidence, who
have covered their country with falsehood and
dishonor, and perhaps involved her in the horrors
of war, no punishment is provided but the
just execration of a virtous republic. The 
patriot may weep over his country's infamy, but
the wretches who wrought it still survive. As
well might it be said that Congress are not
bound to guarantee the republicanism of the
states and to protect every citizen against
foreign oppression, because no specific remedy
has been appointed.

But let it be remembered that human ingenuity
has not yet devised a mode of accountability
for those who exercise the sovereign functions
of government. The wise framers of our
constitution would not anticipate that the 
people's servants would have an inducement or a
wish to transcend the limited of their delegated
powers; and if they had foreseen such an event
they could not have provided a remedy:
They left it where it belongs--at a fountain
head of all power and all right--in the hands of 
men entitled to freedom and determined to be
free. 

And now, fellow citizens, I think my promise
is fulfilled. I think it has been shown that
according to the principles of the federal 
constitution, and the nature and spririt of our
republican institutions, Congress have no power to
impose any condition whatsoever upon a state
in the formation of its constitution, and that
the treaty by which this territory was ceded
from France to the United States, guarantees
to us the right of making our own constitution,
in all its parts. The subject presents many
points of great importance, and of vital interest
to every citizen: I have endeavored to confine
myself to such points as seemed most to
require explanation, entirely omitting many 
interesting topics, lest the discussion should be
too much amplified to be properly attended to.
Principles have been quoted, which from the 
revolution to this day have stood as land marks
for the American politician, and to depart from
which has always been considered destructive of
political liberty; and arguments have been
urged sound and strong in themselves, and had
they been employed by an abler pen, absolutely
irrestible. Yet still I believe the argument
unanswerable--certainly it yet stands unanswered;
for, although several writers have appeared
nominally on the other side of the question,
yet not one of them has attempted to support
the right of Congress to make the constitution
of a state, by any thing like a regular train of
reasoning. They have principally written on
the general principle of domestic slavery--
whether it be "right or wrong politic or 
impolitic"--questions very proper to be discussed 
when our convention is in session, but being
totally irrelevant to the present subject, I do not
now feel disposed to spend my time upon them.

Besides, the majority of the writers nominally
on the other side of the question (to say
nothing of a total departure from the subject) have
made themselves intangible, by descending below
the reach of argument to a style of sneering,
and vulgar ribaldry, which no man will use who
can use a better, and in which I hope I shall
never be their rival. I have too much respect
for those whom I address, and for myself to use
or to combat such a style.

To you, my fellow citizens, it cannot be 
material by what trade or profession I live--read
my arguments; if they are bad condemn them;
if they are good approve and act upon them--
I put it to your judgement.

			HAMPDEN