F 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 HON. JOHN n. THOMSON, 
 
 OF NEW JERSEY, 
 
 ON 
 
 THE ADMISSION OF KANSAS; 
 
 DEUVERED 
 
 N THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 3, 1«58. 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■;#^ ' ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 l-JMNTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICB* 
 
 1858. 
 
SPEECH. 
 
 Thi; Senate having under consideration tlie bill for the 
 .idiiiission of Kansa!« into the Union as a State — 
 
 Mr. THOMSON said: 
 
 Mr. President: I shall vote for the bill for the 
 admission of Kansas as a State into the Union, 
 and. I shall ask permission, very briefly, to state j 
 some of the reasons which induce me to do so. 
 
 1 am aware, sir, that this subject has been so | 
 fully discussed in this Chamber that nothing new 
 can be added to it by any one, least of all by me; 
 and I therefore owe an apology in advance to the 
 Senate for repeating, as I shall be obliged to do, 
 what has been said before so much better than I 
 can possibly hope to do. But the section of the 
 Union from which I come, with the views I en- 
 tertain, render it proper, if not necessary, that 1 
 should ask your indulgence for a few minutes. 
 
 For the last four years our country has been 
 kept in a state of fearful excitement by the agita- 
 tion of a question which has threatened the exist- 
 ence of our Union, and, if muchlongercontinued, 
 must at no distant day inevitably dissolve it. 
 
 An opportunity, in my opinion, is now pre- 
 sented to settle it — an opportunity by which this 
 question, wiiich can never be discussed with profit 
 or safety in Congress, may be removed forever 
 from its Halls. 
 
 An opportunity is now presented to localize an 
 institution within the limits of the States which 
 are interested in it, and to carry out the great 
 principle of the Kansas-iN'ebraska act of *' non- 
 intervention by Congress with slavery in the 
 Stales and Territories." Shall we embrace the 
 opportunity thus presented, or shall we, by neg- 
 lecting it, put in peril, as we will do, the peace, 
 if not thu existence, of the Union? 
 
 A Territory of the United States asks admis- 
 sion as a State into the Union, and presents to 
 you a constitution in every respect — in form and 
 in substance — legal and republican; a constitution 
 framed and put into operation in precisely the 
 same manner as ten of the new States of the 
 Union; aconstitution whose validity is recognized 
 by the acts of the people, and substantially rati- 
 
 ; ficd by their election, under its provisions, of a 
 member of Congress to represent them in your 
 
 t House of Representatives, a Governor, and mem- 
 
 j bers of the State Legislature. 
 
 ! But, notwithstanding this perfect conformity 
 with law and usage, this application is resisted 
 on the ground of its constitution not being in ac- 
 cordance with the will of the people, and its not 
 having been submitted as a whole to them for rat- 
 ification or rejection. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, from the great stress 
 which has been laid in certain quarters upon the 
 necessity of such a submission, one wouUl be apt 
 to suppose that such had always heretofore been 
 the rule as a prerequisite to the admission of a 
 State into the Union; and that the case of Kansas, 
 in which the whole constitution was not submit- 
 ted to the people, was a fatal exception to that rule, 
 and on that account should be rejected by Con- 
 gress. 
 
 But in the investigation which I have made into 
 the history of the formation of the constitutions 
 of the different States of the Union, I have arrived 
 at a very different result; and am satisfied that, so 
 far from submission being a rule, it has been a 
 marked exception to it. Now, although I do most 
 heartily approveof the submission to the people of 
 a State of all great questions affecting their inter- 
 ests, not only their forms of government, but also 
 legislative acts involving the creation of debt and 
 the faith of the State, yet, sir, the submission of 
 aconstitution, after having been framed by a con- 
 vention of delegates duly elected for that purpose, 
 lias certainly not been considered necessary by a 
 large number, if not by a majority of the States 
 of this Union. If the people desire to act directly 
 by their votes upon the adoption of a constitution., 
 they have the undoubted right to do so. But they 
 have an equal right to delegate their power to a 
 convention to act for them, and to maKe and put 
 in operation a constitution witln>ut submitting Lt 
 to them for their further action. 
 
 And if it be true, as has recently been said, that 
 a submission to the people, and their adoption of 
 aconstitution, is necessary togive it validity, then, 
 
upon the same principle, legislative acts should 
 in like manner be submitted before taking effect; 
 for the people are more interested in, and fre- 
 quently more seriously injured by, bad laws than 
 by bad constitutions. 
 
 I have said that a large number, if not a major- 
 ity, of the States of the Union, have not consid- 
 ered this submission as at all necessary. The 
 constitutions, now in force, ofthe following named 
 States, were not submitted for ratification to the 
 people, but adopted in convention. 
 
 Vermont adopted her constitution July 4, 1793, 
 in convention at Windsor. (Compiled Statutes 
 of Vermont, page 15.) 
 
 Connecticut, by convention, in 1818. (See Com- 
 pilation of Statutes of Connecticut, 1854, pages 29 
 and 45.) 
 
 Delaware, by convention, in 1831. (See Acts 
 of 1831, page 49; and Revised Code, page 43.) 
 
 Pennsylvania, by convention, in 1838, with a 
 provision for future amendments to be ratified by 
 the people. (See Purdon's Digest, page 17, sec- 
 tion 10.) 
 
 North Carolina adopted her present constitu- 
 tion in 1776, by convention ; amendments in 1835. 
 
 South Carolina, in 1790, by convention. 
 
 Georgia, by convention, on the 23d of May, 
 1798. 
 
 Alabama, in 1819, by convention under ena- 
 bling act. (See Code of Alabama, page 26, section 
 5, page 28.) 
 
 Mississippi, by convention , in 1817 ; and revised 
 in like manner in 1832. 
 
 Tennessee, by convention, in 1836. 
 
 Kentucky, by convention, in 1799. 
 
 Arkansas, by convention , without enabling act. 
 (See Revised Strxtutcsof Arkansas, pages 17-48.) 
 
 Missouri, by convention, in 1820;andnot sub- 
 mitted to the people. 
 
 Illinois, by convention, in 1818; also appears 
 not to have been submitted to the people. 
 
 The following were compelled by statute to 
 submit the constitutions framed by the conven- 
 tions to the people: 
 
 New York, constitution adopted in 1846. Sec- 
 tion 9, act of 1845, providing for the convention, 
 required its ratification by ilie people. | 
 
 New Jersey, act of 1844, approved February 
 23. Section nine required its submission to the 
 people. It was submitted and ratified in 1844. I 
 
 Maryland, formed in 1851, and ratified by the 
 people, in accordance with previous act of Legis- , 
 iature. (See Acts of 1849, chapter 346, section 8.) i 
 
 Virginia, formed in 1851. Act of March 13, 
 1851, required its ratification by the people. 
 
 Indiana, formed in 1851, ratified by the people, 
 as required by the law authorizing the conven- 
 tion. (See act of 1850, a|)proved January 18, 
 sections 14 and 15.) The section relative to the 
 exclusion and colonization of negroes was sub- 
 mitted as a distinct proposition. (See Revised 
 Statutes, volume 1, page 72.) 
 
 Wisconsin, 1848. Section nine of schedule re- 
 quired its ratification by the people. (Revised Stat- 
 utes, 1849.) In April, 1847, the constitution was 
 defeated by ovorsevi'ii thousand majority. (Niles's 
 Register, volume 72, page 114.) A new consti- 
 tution was then fornK.'d, and the State admitted 
 under it May 29, 1H4H. 
 
 Iowa, formed in 1846. Previous laws of June 
 10, 1845, (over the veto of the Governor,) and of 
 
 January 17, 1846, required ratification by the- 
 people. 
 
 Ohio, the first constitution, formed under an 
 enabling act of Congress, adopted 29th October, 
 1802, was not submitted to the people; that of 
 the 10th March, 1857, was submitted to the peo- 
 ple and approved by them. 
 
 Louisiana, formed 1852. The constitution was, 
 by previous enactment, required to be submitted, 
 and was ratified by the people. 
 
 Michigan, formed 1850. Act of March 9, 1850, 
 required it to be submitted to the people. (See 
 Laws of 1850, No. 78, section 6, on page 66.) 
 
 Maine, formed in 1819, by convention, (page 
 432 Hickey 's Constitution ;) amendments submit- 
 ted to the people 1834, 1837, 1839. 
 
 New Hampshire, formed 1792. (See Compiled 
 Statutes, page 15.) Approved by the two-third 
 vote of the people, and established by convention 
 September 5, 1792. 
 
 Rhode Island, formed 1842. Ratified by vote of 
 the people in pursuance of act of the Legislature. 
 
 Massachusetts, formed 1780. Convention ad- 
 journed till constitution was ratified by two-third 
 vote. 
 
 Texas, formed 1845. Submitted to and ratified 
 by the people. 
 
 The constitutions of the following States were 
 submitted by conventions to the people, without 
 their being required by law to do so: 
 
 Florida, formed in 1838. Territorialact of 1838 
 (see act of 1838, page 5) did not require the rat- 
 ification ofthe constitution by tiie people. There 
 was no authority of Congress. The convention 
 (see Digest of Laws of Florida, page 9) required 
 ratification by the people. 
 
 California, formed in 1849. Convention re- 
 quired the ratification of the constitution by the 
 people. There was no authority of Congress or 
 legislative act to frame a constitution. (See Stat- 
 utes of California, page 24, sections 5, 6, and 7.) 
 
 From this statement it will be seen , sir, that in 
 fourteen States constitutions were formed by con- 
 ventions, and went into operation without any 
 submission whatever to the people. 
 
 In fifteen Slates conventions, in obedience to 
 the law convening them, directed the submission 
 of tlieir constitutions to the people; and in only 
 two Status, viz., Florida and California, conven- 
 tions submitted their constitutions to the people, 
 without being required by law to do so. 
 
 But, considering the very peculiar circum- 
 stances attending the formation of the constitu- 
 tions and Slate governments of these States, 
 Florida and California, tiiey can hardly be re- 
 garded as exceptions to the rule and practice of 
 conventions, viz., submitting constitutions onlij 
 when they were expressly required by law to do 
 so. 
 
 In the case of Florida the constitution was sub- 
 mitted to Congress F'ebruary 20, 1839, and it was 
 not admitted as a State until March 3, 1845. This 
 delay was occasioned by the great diversity of 
 opinion which existed in the Territory, as to 
 whether application should be made at that time 
 for the admission of the Territory as a State, or 
 to postpone tin- ajiplication uiuil their population 
 would authorize them to ask admission for two 
 Slates, East and West I'lorida, into the Union. 
 It was this difference of o|)inion, as appears from 
 the i)roceedings of Congress from 1839 to 1845, 
 
which postponed itaadmissionforso longatime. 
 The submission of tlie constitution to the people 
 was not intended merely (if at all) for the purpose 
 of securing their ratification of its provisions; but 
 for the purpose of ascertaining whether they do- 
 sired, at that time, to make application, under the 
 constitution submitted totliem, foradmission into 
 the Union. The vote on this question was very 
 nearly equal. The difference between Florida 
 and Kansas, in this respect, is a very marked one. 
 In Kansas the sense of the people as to whether 
 they desired admission into the Union, was taken 
 before the assembling of the convention, and in 
 Florida, in a different form, after it had framed a 
 constitution. 
 
 And with regard to California the same neces- 
 sity of submission existed in an equal, if not 
 greater degree. At the time of the formation of 
 the constitution of that State,California was not 
 an organized Territory of the United States, but 
 a conquered country, under military government. 
 The convention of delegates to frame a constitu- 
 tion was called not by any legal or any duly au- 
 thorized body, but by order of the military gov- 
 ernor. And under such circumstances it became 
 an indispensable necessity, that a constitution, 
 so framed , should be ratified by the people, in or- 
 der to impart validity to it. Congress could not 
 otherwise be expected to entertain their applica- 
 tion for admission. 
 
 In the case of Kansas, also, it must be observed, 
 that so far from the convention being instructed 
 by the Legislature to submit the constitution 
 they might frame to the people for their sanc- 
 tion, the very reverse may fairly be inferred from 
 the fact that the act " to provide for the election 
 of delegates to the convention" was vetoed by 
 Governor Geary, because, as he says in his mes- 
 sage returning the bill, " it failed to make any pro- 
 vision to submit the constitution, when framed, 
 to the consideration of the people for their ratifi- 
 cation or rejection." And yet, sir, the act was 
 passed over this veto, by a two-third vote. Cer- 
 tainly then, after this expression of the Legisla- 
 ture of Kansas, and the long line of precedents 
 to which it might refer, the convention might 
 fairly consider itself justified in submitting or not 
 submitting the constitution to the people, as in ' 
 its judgment at the time might bt; considered most 
 expedient. From these facts is not, 1 ask, tlie 
 inference plain and irresistible, that when the ; 
 people, speaking through their representatives,] 
 desire such a submission, they provide for it, and 
 that when they do not i>rovide for it, a conven- j 
 tion may considt_-r it iiimccessary for it to do what 
 the law which called it into being did not require 
 or expect it to do. It cannot be said in any case j 
 where this w;is not required, that it was an over- 
 sight. That would be doing great injustice to the 
 Legislatures of the States, and to the learned men 
 who participated in the formation of their several 
 constitutions. i 
 
 Again, sir, I will ask the attention of the Sen- 1 
 ate to the "joint resolutions of Congress for an- 
 nexing Texas to the United States," approved ' 
 March 1, 184.5, for the purpose of showing the 
 opinion enterlainrd by that body on this question 
 of submission. Tliis "joint resolution" declares 
 that— 
 
 " Concross (IdiIi coiisriit tiiat the territory properly in 
 eluded wuliin, and riglitl'iilly belongitig ti>, tin; Kcpublic of, 
 
 Texas, may be erected into a new State, lo be called the 
 State of Texas, with a republican form or government, to be 
 adopted by tht! ppople of sjiid Republic, ' by deputies in con- 
 vention assembled,' with the consent of the existing gov- 
 ernment, In order tiiat the same may be admitted as one of 
 the States of this Union." 
 
 Not one word is here said about submission 
 to the people, notwithstanding there was at that 
 time probaljly as much difference of opinion, on 
 some subjects, in that Republic, as now exists in 
 Kansas on others. 
 
 Again: in the resolution providing for the ad- 
 mission of the State of Missouri, " on a certain 
 condition, "approved March 2, 1821, such a sub- 
 mission was not deemed necessary. This condi- 
 tion was accepted, not by the people of Missouri, 
 but by the Legislature of the State, by a solemn 
 public act, declaring the assent of this State to the 
 "fundamental condition contained in the resolu- 
 tion of Congress," and approved June 26, 1821. 
 This act of the Legislature, accepting the " fun- 
 damental condition," which then became a part 
 of the constitution of the State, was deemed an 
 acceptance by the Slate; and the President of the 
 United States, on the lOlh of August, 1821, issued 
 his proclamation, declaring the admission of Mis- 
 souri complete, according to law, and it became 
 one of the States of the Union. 
 
 We have now seen that an equal number of the 
 States of the Union, the Congress of the United 
 States, and the President, Mr. Monroe, have not 
 regarded submission of a constitution to the peo- 
 ple for their approval, as necessary to give it 
 validity. Let me now ask attention to the action 
 of the territorial committee of this body and the 
 Senate on this very question. Tiie distinguished 
 Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Toombs,] on the 25th 
 of June, 1856, submitted to the Senate a bill for 
 the admission of Kansas as a State; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Territories, of which 
 the distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. Doug- 
 las] was chairman. The third section of this 
 bill contained the following ]irovision: 
 
 " That the propositions be, and the same are lierel)y, of- 
 fered t(i the said eonveiilioii of the people of Kansas, when 
 formed, for their free acceptance or rejection ; which, if ac- 
 cepted hy the convention, and riililied by the people at the 
 election for the adoption of the constitution, shall be obliga- 
 tory upon the United States and the said State of Kiinsas." 
 
 But, sir, when this bill, known as the "Toombs 
 bill," was reported back to the Senate, tlie words 
 " and ratified by the people at the election for the 
 adoption of the constitution," were stricken out, 
 and the bill as amended passed the Senate, every 
 Democratic member present voting for it except 
 one. 
 
 And, Mr. President, in view of these facts, may 
 I not say that, if the convention of Kansas did 
 err in the respect of not submitting their whole 
 constitution for popular approval, it has, never- 
 theless, done more to propitiate the spirit of pop- 
 ular sovereignty, by submitting an im|>orlant pro- 
 vision in it, than fourteen Slates of the Union, 
 whose constitutions, in whole (>r in part, have 
 never received, by vole, the sanuiioi; of the peo- 
 ple; and I submit that its rejection on that account 
 at this day would be most cruel and unjust. 
 
 If mis^-uided men in Kansas neglected the op- 
 portuiiitv presented by such a submission to ex- 
 hibit their majority , and, by their refusing to vote, 
 gave an easy victory to theiropponents. (by which 
 an obnoxious provision in the consliiuiion has 
 
6 
 
 been retained in it, which they might have strick- 
 en out,) they have no one to complain of but 
 themselves, and the bad advisers who directed 
 and controlled their action. 
 
 The Territorial Legislature afforded them, in 
 the first instance, an opportunity, if they were a 
 majority, as they claim to be, to elect delegates, 
 who would have represented their views, not only 
 on the slavery, but on all other questions in the 
 convention; and the convention afterwards gave 
 them an opportunity of striking from the consti- 
 tution it had framed the only provision on which 
 any difference of opinion existed in the Territory, 
 yet, neglecting both opportunities, these men, or 
 rather this party, now complain of injustice and 
 wrong having been done them in the formation 
 and adoption of the constitution, and insist upon 
 its rejection. Appearing upon the record, in all 
 the votes cast for delegates to the convention, and 
 afterwards in the vote on the constitution, as a 
 minority, they still insist that they are a large ma- 
 
 i'ority of the people of the Territory, and have 
 een defrauded of their rights by a small minority. 
 
 And, sir, if it be true tliat the free-State party, 
 as it is called, with a majority of three to one, as 
 compared to the so-called pro-slavery party, suf- 
 fered itself to be oppressed, wronged, and down- 
 trodden by so small a minority, they, sir, are not 
 entitled to our sympathy for their sufferings, but, 
 on the contrary, deserve our contempt for their 
 cowardice and imbecility. They claim to be a 
 large majority, and it may be true; but there is no 
 evidence of it in any election returns with which 
 Congress can have any concern. They refuse to 
 give the proof of this in the only way in which it 
 can be given — by their votes — and then modestly 
 ask us to take their word for it that they are a very 
 large majority, and that the constitution framed 
 at Lecompton is not in accordance with their will. 
 
 In the election for delegates to the convention, 
 and the vote on the slavery clause of the consti- 
 tution, the majority was very large against this 
 party. No doubt it was so very large because in 
 a factious spirit, they refused to vote on these oc- 
 casions. But tliis was their own act, and they 
 have no right to ask Congress to give them relief 
 from the consequences of their own misconduct, 
 by setting aside the elections in which they re- 
 fused to participate. Congress can only judge of 
 the result of an election by votes delivered, and 
 not by votes withheld. 
 
 In this case, it seems to me that the only ques- 
 tions which Congress can properly consider (with 
 reference to its admission) are not, whether every 
 man in the Territory voted or not, nor into every 
 irregularity which occurred in the elections; nor 
 whether more frauds were committed by one party 
 or the other party in the Territory, in their local 
 elections. With these things Congress has noth- 
 ing to do. But they may inquire into the legality 
 of the body which framed the constitution, and 
 as to the vote by wliich the constitution, or that 
 part submitted to the people, was adopted. And 
 in regard to the legality of the one, and the fair- 
 ness of the other, there ought to be no dispute. 
 
 The Territorial Legislature, elected by the 
 people, recognized by Congress, by the President 
 and late Preside nl of the United Slates, by all the 
 Governors of the Territory, including Governor 
 Walker, were fully authorized in assembling a con- 
 vention to frame a constitution, preparatory to its 
 
 application foradmission as a State into the Union. 
 The sense of the people of the Territory had been 
 taken as to whether they desired to be admitted 
 into the Union, and a large majority were in favor 
 of it. The Territorial Legislature then, in con- 
 formity with their wishes thus expressed, passed 
 an act providing for the election of delegates to a 
 convention to frame a constitution. The legal- 
 ity of this act is fully maintained by Governor 
 Walker. He says: 
 
 "The Territorial Legislature, then, in assembling this 
 convention, were fully sustained bj' the act of Congress ; 
 and the authority of the convention is distinctly recognized 
 in my instructions from the President of the United States. 
 Those who oppose this course cannot aver the alleged irreg- 
 ularity of the Territorial Legislature, whose laws in town 
 and city elections, in corporate francliises,and on all other 
 subjects but slavery, they acknowledge by their votes and 
 acquiescence. If that Legislature was invalid, then are we 
 without law or order in Kansas ; without town, city, or 
 county organization ; all legal and judicial transactions are 
 void ; all titles null ; and anarchy reigns throughout our bor- 
 ders." 
 
 The whole people are then invited and urged 
 to vote for their delegates. 
 
 Mr. Stanton, inhis address of the 17th of April, 
 1857, says: 
 
 "The Government especially recognizes the territorial 
 act which provides for assembling a convention to frame a 
 constitution, with a view to making application to Congress 
 for admission as a State into the Union. That act is re- 
 garded as presenting the only test of the qualification of 
 votes for delegates to the convention, and all preceding re- 
 pugnant restrictions are thereby repealed. In this light the 
 act must be allowed to have provided for a full and fair 
 expression of the will of the people tltrough the delegates who 
 may be chosen to represent them in the constitutional con- 
 vention." 
 
 And Governor Walker, on the 27th of May, in 
 his inaugural address, says: 
 
 "The people of Kansas, then, are invited by the highest 
 authority known to the Constitution, to participate freely, 
 and fairly, in the election of delegates to frame a constitu- 
 tion and State government." 
 
 And in the same address he warns them of the 
 consequences which may result from their refusal 
 to exercise the right of suffrage. He says: 
 
 " You should not console yourself with the reflection th a 
 you may, by a subsequent vote, defeat the ratification of the 
 constitution." * * • " Why incur the hazard of the prelim- 
 inary formation of a constitution, by a minority, as alleged by 
 you, when a majority, by their own votes, could control tlie 
 traming of that instrument." 
 
 But notwithstanding these invitations, appeals, 
 and solemn warnings, a portion claiming to be a 
 majority of the people refused to take part in the 
 election, and thus suffered a minority to elect their 
 delegates and frame a constitution in accordance 
 with their own views. 
 
 The convention of delegates then, thus fairly 
 elected, metandframedaconstitution;and among 
 its provisions is to be found one recognizing the in- 
 stitution of domestic slavery within the State. All 
 the disturbances in Kansas, from the establishment 
 of the territorial government, had their origin in 
 this distracting and dangerous subject; and as it 
 wasa provision of paramount importance,'the con- 
 vention submitted it to the people for them to de- 
 termine whether it siiould be retained in the con- 
 stitution or stricken out. The question was thus 
 ordered by the convention to be submitted to the 
 people to be decided by their votes: " constitution 
 with slavery, "or" constitution withoutslavery." 
 At the time and places ordered, jiolis were opened 
 and the votes were received on this single ques- 
 tion. 
 
The convention was not bound, as I have before 
 stated, by the act of the Territorial Legislature to 
 submit the whole or any part of the constitution 
 for ratification; but they did submit that part of 
 it which related to this question, and the factious 
 and revolutionary party, in like manner as they 
 refused to vote for delegates to the convention, 
 refused to vote upon this submission. It was 
 accordingly retained, and is now a part of the 
 organic law of Kansas as presented to Con- 
 gress. 
 
 It seems to me, sir, that these people, being in 
 a state of rebellion against the territorial govern- 
 ment and the United States, were determined to 
 resist from the beginning everything tending to a 
 quiet settlement of the disturbances in the Terri- 
 tory, and the organization of a State government; 
 ana that I may do no injustice to them, I ask 
 leave to insert what Governor Walker says to 
 them in his proclamation of the 15th of July: 
 
 "You have, liowever, chosen to disregard the laws of 
 Congress, and of the territorial government created by it ; 
 and whilst professing to acknowledge a State government 
 rejected by Congress, and which can, therefore, now exist 
 only by a successful rebellion, and exact from all yourolfi- 
 cers the perilous and sacrilegious oath to support the so- 
 called State constitution ; yet you have, even in defiance 
 of the so-called State Legislature, which refused to grant 
 you a charter, proceeded to create a local government of 
 your own, based only upon insurrection and revolution. 
 The very oath which you require from all your officers, to 
 support your so-called Topeka State constitution, is violated 
 in tiie ver>' act of putting in operation a charter rejected 
 even by them. 
 
 " A rebellion so iniquitous, and necessarily involving such 
 awful consequences, has never before disgraced any age or 
 country." 
 
 And I will here express a strong doubt, judg- 
 ing from the turbulent and rebellious character of 
 these men, whether, if the whole constitution had 
 been submitted to them, and had been rejected, 
 they would have called a convention to make an- 
 other one. I think it extremely doubtful. Pre- 
 tending, as they do, to regard the Topeka consti- 
 tution as a valid one, they would adhere to it. 
 For the sake of consistency they would maintain 
 the validity of their own constitution, and would 
 hardly vote for anything which would destroy the 
 work of their own hands, and expose the iniquity 
 of their own conduct. Besides, sir, a large num- 
 ber of these men do not want a settlement of this 
 question. That would bring peace not only to 
 Kansas, butto the Union; and their vocation would 
 be gone. It is not peace that they seek or desire. 
 It is agitation. Did they seek peace — did they hon- 
 estly desire to change the constitution by peaceful 
 and speedy means — they would be here, sir, ad- 
 vocating the admission of Kansas as a State, at 
 the earliest possible day, that they might then 
 take its government into their own hands, and 
 make such a constitution and laws as would suit 
 themselves. There can be but one of two reasons 
 why they do not pursue this course: either they 
 know they are not, as they claim to be, a major- 
 ity of the people; or, if they are a majority, tney 
 prefer strife, agitation, civil war, and bloodshed, 
 to a peaceful settlement of this question. And all 
 this can, and I fear will, be brought about by the 
 rejection of the Lecompton constitution. 
 
 In this spirit, and with this end in view, they 
 pretend that no change can be made in the con- 
 stitution until the year 1864, and that the curse 
 of slavery will be fixed upon them until that time, 
 if not forever. And this is done in the face of 
 
 the Bill of Rights, which provides, in article two, 
 that— 
 
 " All political power is inherent in the people, and all 
 free governments are founded on their authority, and insti- 
 tuted for their benefit ; and therefore they have at all times 
 an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or 
 abolish their form of government in such manner as they 
 may think proper." 
 
 And also, in the face of the plain meaning of 
 the article in the schedule which provides, that 
 the constitution, after the year 18G4, cannot be 
 altered except in a manner prescribed; but says 
 nothing whatever in regard to it between the time 
 of its adoption and the period above named, 
 1864: 
 
 " Sec. 14. After the year one thousand eight hundred and 
 sixty-four, whenever the Legislature shall think it neces- 
 sary to amend, alter, or change iu constitution, they shall 
 recommend to the electors at the next general election, 
 two thirds of the members of each House concurring, to 
 vote for or against calling a convention ; and if it shall ap- 
 pear that a majority of all citizens of the State have voted 
 for a convention, the Legislature shall, at its next regular 
 session, call a convention, to consist of as many members as 
 there may be in the House of Representatives at the time, 
 to be chosen in the same manner, at the same places, and 
 by the same electors that choose the representatives : said 
 delegates so elected shall meet within throe months after 
 said election, for the purpose of revising, amending, or 
 changing the constitution ; but no alteration shall be made 
 to afl'ect the rights of property in the ownership of slaves." 
 
 The report of the territorial committee of the 
 Senate, presented on the 18th of February last, 
 in reference to this question, says: 
 
 "The Lecompton convention has provided a full, lawful, 
 and perfect remedy for every conceivable grievance, and 
 placed the remedyin the unrestricted hands of the majority 
 of the people, by inserting in the constitution the following 
 distinct and unequivocal recognition of power." 
 
 That is in the second article of the bill of rights, 
 to which I have just referred. 
 
 Again, Mr. President, if all change were pro- 
 hibited until 1864, it seems to me that it comes 
 with an ill grace from the especial advocates of 
 the doctrine of popular sovereignty to deny to the 
 people the right to make a change in their organic 
 law, in spite of any prohibition whatever, when- 
 ever they see fit. And it is not at all consistent 
 for them to maintain that the sovereigns of to-day 
 may frame a constitution which cannot be chano-ed 
 without revolution by the sovereigns of to-nior- 
 row. If this be true, sir, then have the people of 
 these United States passed through a great many 
 revolutions without their knowing it; for nearly 
 every old State in the Union, and some of the new 
 States, have changed their constitutions within 
 the past half century. But, on this point, I will 
 
 take the liberty to refer to very high authority 
 
 the distinguished Senator from New York, [Mr. 
 Seward.] In his speech, delivered in the Senate 
 on the 2d of July, 1856, on the admission of Kan- 
 sas as a State, under the Topeka constitution, he 
 says: 
 
 " I take the constitution, as we must all take it, for better 
 or for worse— just as it is— or we cannot admit the State at 
 all. The people in the new States make their constitutions. 
 Our power is limited to the admission or rejection of a State, 
 whatever its constitution may be. Again, it is not clear that 
 the provision complained ol by the Senator from Georgia will 
 prevent the people of Kansas from subverting this consti- 
 tution, and establishing a new one at any time short of the 
 expiration of nine years. The constitution of the State of 
 New York, established in 1821, provided for alterations to be 
 made with the consent of two successive Legislatures. A 
 party desiring radical innovation, and linding it impossible 
 to obtain that object in the form prescribed in the constitu- 
 tion, aeciucd a majority in the Legislature ; and, without any 
 
8 
 
 coni?titutional authority, carried tli rough a law by which pro- 
 ceedings were instituted for calling a convention, which was 
 subsequently held, and which framed a new constitution. 
 This new constitution, beine submitted to the people, and 
 approved by them, in derogation of the old one, became, .and 
 it yet remains, the supreme law of the land." 
 
 And so in the State of New Jersey. The con- 
 stitution of 1776, which was abolished by the sub- 
 stitution of that of 1845, declared it " firm and 
 inviolable, unless a reconciliation between' Great 
 Britain and the colonies should take place, and 
 the latter taken under the protection of the Crown 
 of Britain;" or, in other words, it was declared 
 to be firm and inviolable forever. Yet a majority 
 of the Legislature of that State passed an " act to 
 provide for the election of delegates to prepare a 
 constitution of the State, and for submitting the 
 same to the people thereof for ratification or re- 
 jection." And this convention met and framed 
 a constitution, which in due time was submitted 
 and approved, and is now in full force in that 
 State. During all which time, from the passage 
 of that act until the new constitution went into 
 operation, the people of that State were entirely 
 unconscious that they were passing through a 
 revolution. 
 
 I think, therefore, we need be under no concern 
 in reference to the ability of the people of Kansas, 
 both under the provisions of the constitution and 
 the higher law of popular sovereignty, to change 
 their constitution whenever they see fit. 
 
 Mr. President, the present opportunity of set- 
 tling the dangerous question of slavery, and 
 binding together with new and strong bonds of 
 affection the different sections of our common 
 country, should not pass unimproved. Bad as 
 things have been in Kansas for the last few years, 
 I feel very confident they will be rendered infi- 
 nitely worse if we refuse to admit the State into 
 the Union at this time. Frauds, iniquities, and 
 acts of violence without number, have been per- 
 petrated, perhaps, in an equal degree by both par- 
 
 ties. They are painful in the extreme, and I am 
 impatient that we should be relieved from their 
 consideration, and that these people should be 
 left to settle their own difficulties in their own 
 way. '^ J^on nostrum tantas componere liUs." It 
 is not for Congress to assume the duty of settling 
 their domestic difficulties. 
 
 The evils to arise from the rejection of Kansas 
 appear to me so great and fearful, and those which 
 may arise from its admission so slight and tran- 
 sitory, that I cannot hesitate to plead for its ad- 
 mission. Rejectit,and you reopen with increased 
 ferocity the intestine war which has been raging 
 for years past, but which at the present moment 
 has nearly ceased. The strife, then, will not be 
 confined to the inhabitants of that region, but 
 auxiliaries from free States on the one side, and 
 slave States on the other, with arms in their hands, 
 will rush to the seat of war, thirsting for each 
 other's blood. And, sir, if the Union should sur- 
 vive the rejection, which I doubt, (for the united 
 South would consider it a declaration that here- 
 after no slave State shall be admitted into the 
 Union,) who can fail to see that war cannot be con- 
 fined to the locality of Kansas.' It will go into 
 bordering States. It will be a sectional war, and 
 the knell of the Union will then be rung. At 
 present there is a calm in Kansas. For the sake 
 of the Union, do not disturb it; do not raise an- 
 other storm which, in its fury, may sweep away 
 not only Kansas, but yourselves. Leave the peo- 
 ple of Kansas free to fight their own battles for 
 supremacy, under their own State government 
 and laws. They will soon settle down as the citi- 
 zens of all the other States have done, and we 
 shall hear no more of bleeding Kansas or of bor- 
 der ruffians. More than all, the slavery agitation, 
 banished from the Halls of Congress, will cease 
 to distract us, and our beloved Union will be es- 
 tablished on a basis which, I trust in God, may 
 never be overthrown. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 136 016 4 
 
 I