[Footnote 13:—­The “sixteen” represented these States:  Langdon and Oilman, New Hampshire; Sherman and Johnson, Connecticut; Morris, Fitzsimmons, and Clymer, Pennsylvania; King, Massachusetts; Paterson, New Jersey; Few and Baldwin, Georgia; Bassett and Read, Delaware; Butler, South Carolina; Carroll, Maryland; and Madison, Virginia]

[Footnote 14:—­Vide note 3, ante.]

[Footnote 15:—­Chap. 28, Sec. 7, U.S.  Statutes, 5th Congress, 2d Session.]

[Footnote 16:—­Langdon was from New Hampshire, Read from Delaware, and Baldwin from Georgia.]

[Footnote 17:—­Chap. 38, Sec. 10, U.S.  Statutes, 8th Congress, 1st Session.]

[Footnote 18:—­Baldwin was from Georgia, and Dayton from New Jersey.]

[Footnote 19:—­Rufus King, who sat in the old Congress, and also in the Convention, as the representative of Massachusetts, removed to New York and was sent by that State to the U.S.  Senate of the first Congress.  Charles Pinckney was hi the House, as a representative of South Carolina.]

[Footnote 20:—­Although Mr. Pinckney opposed “slavery prohibition” in 1820, yet his views, with regard to the powers of the general government, may be better judged by his actions in the Convention: 

FRIDAY, June 8th, 1787.—­“Mr. Pinckney moved ’that the National Legislature shall have the power of negativing all laws to be passed by the State Legislatures, which they may judge improper,’ in the room of the clause as it stood reported.

“He grounds his motion on the necessity of one supreme controlling power, and he considers this as the corner-stone of the present system; and hence the necessity of retrenching the State authorities, in order to preserve the good government of the national council.”—­T. 400, Elliott’s Debates.

And again, THURSDAY, August 23d, 1787, Mr. Pinckney renewed the motion with some modifications.—­T. 1409. Madison Papers.

And although Mr. Pinckney, as correctly stated by Mr. Lincoln, “steadily voted against slavery prohibition, and against all compromises,” he still regarded the passage of the Missouri Compromise as a great triumph of the South, which is apparent from the following letter: 

CONGRESS HALL, March 2d, 1820, 3 o’clock at night.

DEAR SIR:—–­I hasten to inform you, that this moment we have carried the question to admit Missouri, and all Louisiana to the southward of 36 deg. 30’, free from the restriction of slavery, and give the South, in a short time, an addition of six, perhaps eight, members to the Senate of the United States.  It is considered here by the slaveholding States as a great triumph.

The votes were close—­ninety to eighty-six—­produced by the seceding and absence of a few moderate men from the North.  To the north of 36 deg. 30,’ there is to be, by the present law, restriction; which you will see by the votes, I voted against.  But it is at present of no moment; it is a vast tract, uninhabited, only by savages and wild beasts, in which not a foot of the Indian claims to soil is extinguished, and in which, according to the ideas prevalent, no land office will be opened for a great length of time.