Page:History of Southeast Missouri 1912 Volume 1.djvu/297

 HISTORY OP SOUTHEAST MISSOURI 237 power to supersede, if necessary, treaty obli- gations, and tal^e those measures needed for the best interests of the country. After long debate the amendment passed the house, but the amended bill was rejected by the senate, and the fifteenth Congress ad- journed with a deadlock between the houses. The question was presented to the sixteenth Congress in December, 1819. Neither house seemed ready to recede from its position, but a new element entered into the discussion. Maine had applied for admission to the Union. It would come in, if admitted, as a free state. Its admission was desired by those who wished to place a i-estriction on the admission of Mis- souri. The senate, therefore, at the sugges- tion of Senator Jesse B. Thomas, of Illinois, united the measures for the two states into one bill. It was declared by those opposed to the restriction on Missouri that, unless that restriction was abandoned and Missouri ad- mitted on terms of equality with other states, Maine should not be admitted at all. The debate over this matter continued for several weeks. A deadlock again occurred between the two houses. Out of that disagreement came the measures which are collectively known as the Missouri Compromise. Maine was admitted as a free state; the people of Missouri were authorized to form a government without anj-^ clause in the act re- ferring to slavery, and it was stipulated that slavery should be excluded from "all the ter- ritory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, north of thirty- six degrees and thirty minutes north lati- tude," except, of course, Missouri. This series of measures known as the Mis- souri Compromise was approved on March 6. 1820. As we have said, this authorized the formation of a state government in Missouri ; but, contrary to the usual practice, did not provide for the admission of the state into the Union. The people had no sort of guarantee that they would be admitted, even after the formation of their government. In pursu- ance of the terms of the act, an election was held in the territory in May, 1820, to select members of a constitutional convention. This convention was empowered, by the terms un- der which its members were elected, to de- termine by majority whether it was expedient for them to frame a constitution, and, if con- sidered expedient, to proceed to the work of making the constitution. If, on the other hand, they felt that it was not the time for this work, they were authorized to provide for the election of another convention. It is quite probable that a constitution favoring slavery would have been adopted in the state, no matter at what time the mem- bers of the convention had been elected. What v;as a mere probability, however, became a certainty, owing to the feeling of irritation over the attempted restriction on what was felt to be the right of the people of the state to decide the slavery question for themselves free from the dictation of Congress. John Scott had declared during the discussion of the Tallmadge amendment that the proposed limitation of the power of the people was an insult to them, and this was the prevailing sentiment in the state. Under such conditions the members of the constitutional convention were chosen and they were for a slavery con- stitution by a large majority. This convention met in St. Louis, June 12, 1820. Its sessions were held in the hotel at the corner of Third and Vine streets, laiown as the "INIansion House." There were forty- one members of the convention. The South- east Missouri members were as follows : From