;^;^^ 
 
 i/?^'-i^ 
 
 ^j^ 
 
 
 
 ''■'i''Wi<v:i*,i^ 'V 
 
■^♦., 
 
 S.^l.^i-j.. 
 
 
 ''■v^^rr 
 
 ; i ■-{,:' 
 
 
 ■ -k ■':'■ '■ : 
 
 
 
 
 V-, 
 
 
 
 -A (1 
 
 •V ''A:/,. - 
 
 ', ^''v" .',"a 
 
 
 
 
 
KANSAS AND THE LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. I. WASHBUM, JR., OF MAINE. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 7, 1858. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to say at this 
 time about the neutrality laws or William 
 Walker. I shall speak to-day of Kansas and 
 the Lecompton Constitution. On the 30th day 
 of May, A. D. 1854, the memorable act, entitled 
 "An act to organize the Terjitories of Nebraska 
 and Kansas," was passed by the Congress of the 
 United States. Among its provisions was the 
 following : 
 
 " That the Constitulion, anvl all laws of the United 
 States which are not locally iiiapplipable, shall have the 
 same force aiiU effect within the said Territory of Kansas 
 as elsewhere wiiliiu the United Slates, except the eighth 
 section of the act preparatory to the admission of Mis- 
 souri into the Union, approved March 6th, lf-20, which, 
 being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention 
 by Congress with Slavery in the States ajid Territories, 
 as recognised by the legislation of 1?50. commonly call- 
 ed the compromise measures, is hereby declared inope- 
 rative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of 
 this act not to legislate Slavery into any Territory or 
 State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the peo 
 pie thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their do- 
 mestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the 
 Constitulion of the United States: Provided, TUai notliijig 
 herein contained shall be construed lo revive or put in 
 force any law or regulation which may have existed 
 prior to the act of March 6th, 1850, either protecting, es- 
 tablishing, prohibiting, or abolishing Slavery." 
 
 This doctrine of non-intervention by Congress 
 in respect to Slavery in the Territories — to its 
 inventor, (for it was a new thing under the 
 Bun,) the present Secretary of State, if not to 
 the country, the direful spring of unnumbered 
 woes — was founded upon the assumption, that 
 with the people of the Territories resided the 
 right to manage their own affairs, to regulate their 
 social, domestic, and local concerns in their own 
 way. It was asserted that this right had been 
 practically conceded to them in reference to all 
 local and domestic questions but one — that of 
 Slavery. And it was maintained that the inter- 
 vention of Congress in respect to this single 
 question of Slavery was invidious, unjust, and 
 unconstitutional, and ought to be terminated by 
 a solemn declaration and abnegation by Con- 
 gress ; so that, hereafter, in all sections of the 
 country, it should be distinctly understood that 
 the people of the Territories are to be left " to 
 form and regulate their domestic institutions" — 
 all of them — "in their own way;" that they 
 should be as free to decide in reference to Sla- 
 
 very as other questions, and be governed by one 
 and the same rule concerning all of them. To 
 show that I have stated correctly the grounds 
 upon which this provision of the Kansas-Nebras- 
 ka act was advocated or defended by those who 
 voted for it, I will read some brief extracts from 
 the speeches of leading Democrats, made in 
 Congress while this measure was pending before- 
 that body, and I may properly commence with 
 the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
 Territories in the Senate, the Senator from Illi- 
 nois. Judge Douglas, repeating what he had said . 
 on a previous occasion, spoke as follows : 
 
 "The position that I have ever taken has been that 
 this, (the Slavery question.) and allother qurstions relalins 
 to the domesii'! affairs and domestic policy of the Territo- 
 ries, ought to be left to the decision of the people ll^em- 
 gelves; and that we ought to be content with whattver 
 way they would decide the question, because they have 
 a much deeper interest in these matters than we have ; ; 
 and know much better what institutions suit them than 
 we, who have never been there, can decide for ihcm." 
 
 The Secretary of State, Gen. Cass, then a Sen- 
 ator from Michigan, e.xultingly hailed the triumph 
 of "Squatter Sovereignty," when the Nebraska 
 bill passed the Senate. He had previously made 
 an elaborate speech in its favor, in which he la- 
 bored to prove that the people of the Territories, 
 as well as of the States, ought to be permitted to 
 determine for themselves in regard to all their 
 local institutions. He said: 
 
 " VVe know we cannot touch their domestic hearths, 
 nor their domestic altars; their family and soiiul rela- 
 tions; their wives nor their children; thtir meti-srrvants ■ 
 nor their maid-scn-aiits : their houses, iheir farms, nor 
 thtir property, without a ^rosi violatioi of the inalienable 
 rights o/" man, consL-crated by the blood of our fathers, 
 and hallowed bv the affections of their sons'' 
 
 The gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Stephens,] ■ 
 it will be remembered, took an active and lead- 
 ing part in engineering this bill through the 
 House of Representatives. That you may un- 
 derstand why he desired it might become a 
 law, I will read a short passage /rom a speech 
 which he made in this House on the Hth of 
 February, 1854: 
 
 " And where do you, calling yourselves Democrats . 
 from the North, tjianil upon this great (|uc!>lioii of popular 
 rights? Do you consider it Demoeraiio lo exercise the , 
 high prerogative of stilling the voice of the adveiilurou« .- 
 pioneer, and restricting his suffrage in a matter concern- 
 ing his own interef t, happiness, and government, which 
 
M 
 
 he is much more capable i f deciding- than you are T As 
 for myself and ilie fne;ids of the Nehraska bill, we think 
 lliat our lellovv-ciiizens who ^o 'o the frontier, penetrate 
 the wilderness, cut down the forest, till the soil, erect 
 school-houses and churches, extend civilization, and lay 
 the foundation of future Slates and Kmoires, do not lose, 
 by their ch,^nge of place in hope of bettering their condi- 
 tion, eiiher their capacity for self-governmeut, or their 
 just rightf to exercise it, conformably to the Constitution 
 of the United Stales. 
 
 ■' V\'e of the South are willing that they nhould exerei.se 
 it upon the subject o/ the condition of the African race among 
 them, AS WELL as li'on other questions of domestic poli- 
 cy " 
 
 Such, sir, were the arguments and considera- 
 tions upon which the friends of the Nebraska 
 bill urged its adoption by Congress. There were, 
 to be sure, a few gentlemen in both Houses who 
 supported the measure on different grounds ; who 
 repudiated and scouted the doctrine of popular 
 sovereignty, as advocated by the gentlemen from 
 whose speeches I have quoted ; but they were 
 not the active and efficient men upon whose 
 efforts its success depended, although they may 
 .have been the parties who compelled its intro- 
 duction. And I assert, without fear of contra- 
 diction from any intelligent quarter, that the 
 avowed purpose for which the Nebraska bill, in 
 the shape which it finally assumed, was enrolled 
 ajp-on the statute book of the United States, was 
 to Assure to the people of the Territories the 
 right to make such rules and regulations, laws 
 and .ordinances, affecting their domestic inter- 
 ests and systems, of whatever character, as they 
 should see fit. Were it necessary to fortify this 
 allegation by additional testimony to the same 
 effect with that which I have adduced, it could 
 bo found in more than fifty speeches, filling the 
 columEi.e of the Appendix to the Congression^al 
 Globe for the first session of the Thirty- third 
 Congress. 
 
 Such were the reasons assigned for the enact- 
 ment of this law, by its influential and efficient 
 friends 5 and to those of their number who, by 
 their subsequent action in attempting in good 
 faith to secure to the people the untrammeled 
 exercise of this right, prove that they were really 
 actuated by the motives which they professed, 
 we may yield our respect, while we must con- 
 tinue to lament that they should have fallen into 
 errors so grave and so vital. The design of the 
 section of the bill which I have read was not, as 
 the President would imply, in giving the people 
 of the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska the 
 power to vote on the question of Slavery, to de- 
 prive them of the opportunity to vote on other 
 questions of domestic interest; but, that the 
 right which it was assumed they already pos- 
 sessed, and had long enjoyed, to act on these 
 questions, should be extended to the question of 
 Slavery. And from the premises of the Senators 
 and Uepresentatives upon whose labors the in- 
 corporation of this section into the Kansas-Ne- 
 braska act in the main depended, an argument 
 in its favor, of very considerable plausibility was 
 founded ; and the only argument that had any 
 influence in reconciling the Northern Democracy 
 to the abrogation of the Missouri Compromise. 
 
 Thus, I think, I have shown that if the mem- 
 bers of Congress who voted for the Nebraska 
 bill knew what they were about, the President is 
 
 very much in error in asserting that its provisions 
 do not contemplate the same submission to the 
 people of all questions of interest to them, that 
 he says is required in respect to the Slavery 
 question. 
 
 The opponents of this act denied that the 
 people of the Territories possessed the absolute 
 and exclusive right of legislation in regard to 
 their domestic affairs. They did not yield their 
 assent to the arguments to which I have refer- 
 red, for they did not understand that the people 
 of the Territories possessed an;/ legislative powers 
 as of unconditional right. They believed that 
 Congress might, if it saw proper, make all the 
 rules and regulations for the Territories of the 
 United States, so long as they should remain 
 Territories. So far as the question of constitu- 
 tional power to legislate for these inchoate polit- 
 ical communities was concerned, they never 
 doubted that it was vested in the Congress of 
 the United States ; and they knew that this 
 opinion had never been questioned, from the 
 foundation of the Government down to 1847 ; 
 that it had been expressly affirmed and acted 
 upon by all the departments of the Government — 
 by all Presidents, Cabinets, and Congresses — 
 during a period of sixty years ; and had many 
 times and often, and with great earnestness, 
 been propounded as the true doctrine, even by 
 those who were then laboring so zealously for 
 its overthrow ; and particularly did they remem- 
 ber that the Supreme Court of the United States, 
 while the great and guiding mind of Marshall 
 presided over its deliberations, had decided spe- 
 cifically, in the leading case of the American 
 and Ocean Insurance Company vs. Canter, (1 
 Pet., s. 511,) that Congress had full, plenary, 
 and exclusive legislative power over the Terri- 
 tories ; and let me remark that they will not 
 overlook the fact now — and to it I beg to call 
 the particular attention of the House — that this 
 opinion has recently been sustained by the same 
 tribunal, in the most emphatic manner, in the 
 celebrated case of Dred Scott vs. Sandford, in 
 Avhich it is expressly stated that Congress has 
 general power to legislate for the Territories. 
 So that, if there were no constitutional inhibi- 
 tion in reference to the exclusion of Slavery, its 
 legislation in the passage of the Missouri Com- 
 promise would have been rightful and valid. 
 The Supreme Court agree with the Republicans 
 in denying the doctrine of popular sovereignty 
 in the Territories, as asserted by the ostensible 
 authors and most active promoters of the Ne- 
 braska act, and in affirming the power of Con- 
 gress to make laws for the government of these 
 incipient States, in all cases and for all purposes, 
 except in so far as it is restrained by the Consti- 
 tution. That I do not err in this statement, ap- 
 pears from the following extract from the opin- 
 ion of Chief Justice Taney, in the case of Scott 
 vt. Sandford. 
 
 " It is thu.H clear, from the whole opinion on this point, 
 thai the Court (in Insurance Company vs. r!nnter) did not 
 mean to decide wlietlier the power (lo govern the Terri- 
 tories) was derived from the clause in the Ooi'Mitution,or 
 was the necessary con»e()ueiicc of the right to acquire. 
 They do decide that the power in Con;:re.ss is unquestionable, 
 and in this ict tntirtly toncur, and nothing wM be found in 
 
this opinion to the conlrary. The power Mauds firmly on 
 the latter alternative put by the Court— that is, as'Me in- 
 ti'itabte consequence of the right to acquire territory.' " 
 
 So much for the Nicholson letter ! So much 
 for " squatter sovereignty ! " 
 
 It will be seen that the court ftilly agree with 
 the Republicans in repudiating, root and branch, 
 length and breadth, the dogma of popular sover- 
 eignty, but differ from them in holding that the 
 Constitution has forbidden the interference of 
 Congress for the restriction of Slavery. The 
 Republicans, maintaining the existence of this 
 general power in Congress, insist that it extends 
 to all proper subjects of legislation in the Terri- 
 tories — the question of Slavery included. And 
 they agree with Senator Douglas and General 
 Cass, that it has no more power over Slavery 
 than it has over other questions of domestic 
 policy and interest. 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, the Republicans hold that, al- 
 though the legislative power resides, and of neces- 
 sity must reside, in Congress, it may be committed 
 by the latter, in whole or in part, into the hands of 
 the people of the Territories ; or, in other words, 
 that Congress may govern through the instru- 
 mentality of Territorial Legislatures, whose ac- 
 tion, being subject to its approval or rejection, 
 becomes, in effect, the action of that body. They 
 also believe that it is wise and expedient to del- 
 egate to the people of the Territories the power 
 to make, or rather to initiate, the laws and regu- 
 lations in regard to such matters, systems, and 
 institutions, as are purely local, and aflFect only 
 themselves ; but that there are subjects, not of a 
 merely local character, which should be reserved 
 for the exclusive legislation of Congress. Of 
 such was the question of Slavery, or no Slavery, 
 in Kansas, as it afiFected, not only the people of 
 that Territory, but also of all the States, the in- 
 terest and welfare, the peace and prosperity, of 
 all. 
 
 It was a question in which the people of Maine 
 and the people of Texas were interested. The 
 people of Maine believe that their interests are 
 afiFected unfavorably by any act which extends 
 Slavery, and enlarges its power in the country 
 and in Congress, gives to the Representatives of 
 servile labor increased power to protect and pro- 
 mote the particular and special interests of those 
 who live upon such labor, at the expense, and it 
 may be to the destruction, of free labor — of labor 
 that owns itself, and claims the right to protect 
 itself as vital and sacred. And so they said to 
 their Representatives in 1820, and have said to 
 them ever since, while in all matters aflFecting 
 the people of the Territories alone, it will be well 
 for you to allow them to make their own laws, 
 in those which concern not only them, but us 
 also, reserve the power to yourselves and to us, 
 whose agents you are, that our rights may be 
 preserved and our interests protected. Grant 
 not the power to the enemies of our institutions — 
 the Mormons, for example — to go on to our own 
 territory, purchased by our blood or treasure, or 
 both, and there establish schemes and systems 
 of wrong and immorality and violence, discred- 
 itable to the age, and disgraceful to the country, 
 and which, if not checked, will undermine the 
 
 institutions of Christianity and civilization, which 
 are the hutments and defences of Republican 
 Liberty. 
 
 Upon this point, I rejoice to be able to bring 
 to my support the opinion of one of the wisest 
 men the Republic has ever known, and whose 
 authority in a question of this character yields 
 to that of no other name. I refer to James 
 Madison, from whose writings I read thus : 
 
 "Every addition the Stutes receive to their nonnher of 
 slaves, tends to weaken and render them less capiihle ol" 
 self-defence. In case of hostilities with foreign nniiong, 
 they will be the means ot inviting attack, instead of re- 
 pelling invasion. It IS a necessary duty of the General 
 Government to protect every part of their confines against 
 dangers, <M loeW uilcrno/ oj (jrrernai. Everyiiiing, there- 
 fore, which tends to increas"; danger, though it be a local 
 "^•"V. yet, if it involves national expense or safety, be- 
 comes of concern to every part of the Union, and is a 
 proper subjrct for the consideration oflhose charged with 
 the general administration of the Government." 
 
 It required no extraordinary degree of fore- 
 sight to predict what would follow the repeal of 
 the Missouri Compromise. The slaveholding 
 oligarchy might use popular sovereignty for a 
 special purpose ; but for them, as a principle of 
 general application, it was not entirely safe. They 
 had discovered that their system of servile labor 
 was one which required continual bracing and 
 strengthening. It is in its nature, as all things 
 false and violent are, self-destructive. It must 
 have scope and room for expansion, or it dies ; 
 blasting the earth wherever it treads, it must 
 have " fresh woods and pastures n&w," or it 
 starves. It must be protected from without, and 
 its defences and supports must be placed beyond 
 the contingencies of puJalic opinion, and otit of 
 the reach of ordinary assault; therefore, it must 
 be guarded by constitutional sanctions. Hence 
 the Dred Scott opinion — interpreted by President 
 Buchanan, in his letter to Professor Silliman and 
 others, as containing the doctrine, as it undoubt- 
 edly does, that the Constitution of the United 
 States affixes, in certain cases, to persons of 
 African descent, the character of property — 
 stamps them with the mark of chattels. If this 
 be sound doctrine, it is plain that the Constitu- 
 tion carries Slavery, not on]^ into the Territories, 
 but into the States ; for whatever it makes prop- 
 erty, no State law or Constitution can declare 
 shall not be property. 
 
 Sir, this is a monstrous doctrine ; and that it 
 is necessary to be maintained, only proves the 
 mischievous and desperate character of the sys- 
 tem for whose protection it is invoked. If it ia 
 the true doctrine, then was the Constitution 
 ordained not to secure the " blessings of lib- 
 erty" to the people of this countrj', but to fix 
 upon them forever a system regarded, we have 
 been taught to believe, by its framers, and all 
 the early statesmen, as without foundation in 
 natural right or sound policy ; then must it be 
 admitted that the great end and object of the 
 Constitution was to establish or protect Slavery 
 everywhere within the range of its operations. 
 For if it recognises, and was intended to recog- 
 nise, property in slaves to such an extent that it 
 is not within the power of a State, (or Territory,) 
 by its laws, to forbid the existence of this rela- 
 tion within its own jurisdiction, it does, in re- 
 
gard to property in slaves, what it has never 
 been understood to effect in respect to property 
 in anything else — it makes a fundamental dis- 
 tinction between slave property and all other 
 kinds of property. It has never been held that 
 the Constitution gives to horses, oxen, carriages, 
 or anything else, the character of property, in the 
 sense in which it is understood by the President 
 and by the Supreme Court to affix that character 
 to negroes held to service. The legislative 
 power of a State or Territory may, without 
 doubt, declare that there shall be no property in 
 liquors of domestic manufacture, in bank notes, 
 in horses, in carriages without wheels or with 
 wheels, or with wide wheels or narrow wheels, 
 or in oxen, as I am informed the Legislature of 
 Missouri has already done. Nobody, I presume, 
 questions the existence of this power in the 
 States. It is exercised by them every day. Deny 
 it to them, and they are deprived of one of their 
 most important functions. What power but that 
 of the people of the several States can decide 
 what shall be treated as property within their 
 respective jurisdictions ? Shall the Federal Gov- 
 ernment exercise this power? If so, whence is 
 it derived ? Does the Constitution declare what 
 is property in New York or Pennsylvania ? If so, 
 what becomes of the police powers of thTStates? 
 No, sir ; this right to declare what may be held 
 and recognised as property exists in the several 
 States, each for itself, and nowhere else. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding these and 
 other objections on the part of the true friends 
 of self-government and of the Constitution, the 
 Nebraska bill became a law, and the Missouri 
 Compromise was abrogated and destroyed. The 
 opponents of Slavery extension were beaten, but 
 their responsibilities to the Territories, to the 
 country, and to the cause of human nature, did 
 not cease with this defeat. An opportunity to 
 labor for the preservation of the Territories 
 remained ; and duty and consistency alike en- 
 joined upon them the obligation of taking care, 
 so far as they had the power, that the act for 
 organizing the Territories of Nebraska and 
 Kansas should be honestly executed. They 
 could not restore the Missouri Compromise — they 
 attempted to do it in the last Congress, and 
 failed — but they could say to the Democratic 
 party, you have passed this act for the avowed 
 purpose of enabling the people of these Terri- 
 tories to decide for themselves in reference to 
 Slavery, as well as other questions of interest 
 to them — we fear that some of your number are 
 determined that they shall not do so unless they 
 decide in a particular way. To you, therefore, 
 who really believed in what you called popular 
 sovereignty, and who in good faith promoted the 
 passage of this law for the reasons which you 
 urged with so much earnestness and persistency, 
 we look to take care thai wliat you alleged were 
 its genuine objects, shall be faithfully carried 
 out ; and as the best, and as all that we can now 
 do, we pledee ourselves to act with you, if you 
 will permit it, and, if not, to act without you, in 
 honest purpose, to secure to the people of these 
 new communities an opportunity to exclude 
 Slavery therefrom if they shall so desire. You 
 
 were pledged to protect them in the exercise of 
 this grant, or right, if you please to call it so — 
 pledged by your speeches, your resolutions, your 
 presses, by the messages of your late President, 
 and the inaugural address of your present. But, 
 sir, in what way have these pledges been kept, 
 and to what extent have you been permitted to 
 keep them ? 
 
 It is not necessary for my present purpose that 
 I should recall to your notice the operations of 
 the "Border Ruffians" in Kansas in 1854, when 
 a Delegate was first sent to this House from that 
 Territory, chosen by the votes of some twelve or 
 fourteen hundred non-residents, men who had no 
 better right to vote there than you had; in 185S, 
 when a Legislature was imposed upon that Terri- 
 tory by citizens of Missouri and other slave States, 
 who, to the number of more than four thou- 
 sand eight hundred, invaded it, and claimed and 
 exercised the privilege of voting, and by their 
 votes elected a large majority, if not all, of the , 
 members of that body; in 1856, a year stained 
 by the record of crimes and atrocities in that 
 unhappy Territory, so monstrous and so strange, 
 that history will set it apart, for its bad eminence, 
 from all other years in the roll of many generations. 
 But I will come down to the present year, and 
 to what has transpired under the administration 
 of Mr. Buchanan. And, sir, I regret to say that 
 I am compelled to believe that this Administra- 
 tion has never intended that the people of Kan- 
 sas should be permitted to decide for themselves 
 in respect to the question of Slavery. At the 
 same time that I say this, in deepest sorrow, and 
 because I must say it if I speak the truth, I re- 
 joice with exceeding joy in the manifestation, in 
 influential quarters, of a fixed and unchangeable 
 purpose to see that what were urged as the true 
 principles of the Nebraska bill shall be respected 
 and carried out at all hazards. 
 
 But to return to the Administration. I have 
 said, in effect, that I do not believe that the Ad- 
 ministration ever intended that Kansas should 
 be a free State, let the wishes of her people be 
 what they might. And for this belief I am pre- 
 pared to give my reasons. Men and Govern- 
 ments are to be known by their actions, rather 
 than by their professions. Soon after the inau- 
 guration of Mr. Buchanan, the question, " who 
 shall hold the offices for and in Kansas?'' claim- 
 ed the attention of the Administration. Govern- 
 or Geary, who, it was understood, was in favor 
 of Popular Sovereignty, so called, intimated, it is 
 said, his willingness to continue in office as 
 Governor, if he could be allowed to employ all 
 the proper means necessary to protect the people 
 in the exercise of their rights. But no; this was 
 not to be thought of; and a distinguished gentle- 
 man from Mississippi, in whom, from his residence 
 in the South, and his known views upon the 
 subject of Slavery, it was supposed, no doubt, 
 that full confidence might be reposed by the 
 Propagandists, was appointed in the place of 
 Governor Geary. For the subordinatr lificea in 
 the Territory the most extreme and lotorious 
 Pro-Slavery men were selected — in so.ac iastan- 
 ces, men who had been most unscrup ilous and 
 violent in their efforts to defeat the popular will; 
 
CTen men who bad been tbe leading spirits in 
 those deeds of inhumanity and blasphemy which 
 made the Und shudder, and whose arms were 
 red to the shoulders with the blood of their mur- 
 dered yictims. 
 
 It is true the Administration promised the 
 people of Kansas that they should have an hon- 
 est vote at their elections. How has this promise 
 been fulfilled ? To say nothing of the election of 
 members of the Constitutional Convention, to 
 which I shall have occasion to allude hereafter, 
 let me call your attention to the election of mem- 
 bers of the Territorial Legislature. When it had 
 been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Gov- 
 ernor and Secretary of Kansas that the most pal- 
 pable and stupid frauds had been perpetrated in 
 McGee and Johnson counties, by which the ma- 
 jority of the Legislature would be given to the 
 Slave-State men — frauds so patent that the Pres- 
 ident himself did not doubt their existence, and 
 the Governor and Secretary, as fair men, could 
 not help rejecting the votes returned through 
 these frauds, whereby the Free-State men were 
 placed in the minority in the Legislature — what 
 did the President do? Approve and commend 
 the course of Governor Walker and Secretary 
 Stanton in performing their duty, and seeing that 
 the right of the people to govern themselves, so 
 far as delegated by the organic act, was not 
 destroyed by fraud ? No ; but if all rumor be 
 correct, he had for them nothing but frowns and 
 reproaches. Now, if Governor Walker had been 
 more faithful to the Administration, and less true 
 to the people and his own promises, and had 
 given certificates to the Pro-Slavery claimants in 
 Johnson and McGee, it would not have been dif- 
 ficult, under the forms and pretences of an ad- 
 herence to the doctrine of popular sovereignty, 
 to have brought Kansas into the Union as a slave 
 State. But when this election was lost, all was 
 lost, and even the pretexts of popular sovereignty 
 were as good as dismissed forever. 
 
 I now come to a consideration of the Lecomp- 
 ton Constitution and the President's message. 
 The Constitution of the United States provides 
 that Congress may admit new States into the 
 Union. The language used implies the exercise 
 of a discretion in Congress ; it ought to be, no 
 doubt, a wise, honest, just discretion. I do not 
 understand from the Constitution, or from the 
 practice of Congress, that any particular form of 
 application is necessary. Whenever the judg- 
 ments and consciences of Senators and Repre- 
 sentatives are satisfied that the people of a Ter- 
 ritory having a sufficient population desire to be 
 admitted into the Union as a State, and they pre- 
 sent themselves with a ConstituUiou providing for 
 a republican form of government, and which does 
 no injustice to other States, which contains noth- 
 ing immoral, indecent, or greatly wrong, it is the 
 duty of Congress to grant the prayer of their 
 petition. But if the Constitution presented does 
 not provide for a republican form of government ; 
 if it contains provisions which are manifestly 
 unjust to other States ; if its provisions are in- 
 decent and immoral, although they may not be 
 regarded as strictly inconsistent with the idea ol 
 a republican form of government ; or if the mem- 
 
 bers of Congress believe, and from the evidenco 
 must believe, that it is not in accordance with 
 the wishes of a majority of the people ; if they 
 know, as well as such things can be known, that 
 the majority of the people are opposed to it, and 
 would vote against it if they had a chance, it is 
 their duty to vote against the admission of a 
 State under such circumstances. I should do it. 
 I will not vote to drag a people into the Union 
 against their will, if I know their will, an<l under 
 a Constitution which is not theirs. I have no 
 right to do so. In thus voting, I would abuse the 
 power vested in me as much as I should if I 
 were to vote against the admission of a State 
 which should present a petition for admission 
 accompanied by a just and republican Constitu- 
 tion, and should have the best reason to know 
 that it was the wish of the great majority of the 
 people that she should be admitted. 
 
 I shall not look to forms and technicalities, but 
 to the substance, in such cases. I would not 
 consider an enabling act by Congress, or an act 
 of the Territorial Legislature, necessary in any 
 case to authorize the people to ask for admission 
 as a State. Should a Territory having the requi- 
 site population desire admission as a State, and 
 a respectable number of her citizens issue a call 
 for an election at which the judgment of the peo- 
 ple could be taken whether they would have a 
 State Government, and it should be made to 
 appear to my mind that a majority of the people 
 desired the formation of such a Government, and 
 should these people provide for an election of 
 delegates to a Convention to form a Constitution, 
 and elections be held under such call, and the 
 people vote thereat and elect delegates, and these 
 meet in Convention and frame a proper and re- 
 publican Constitution, and submit it to the peo- 
 ple, by a clear majority of whom it should be rat- 
 ified, and I should perceive that all things were 
 done honestly and in good faith, can there be the 
 slightest doubt that it would be both my right 
 and duty, under such circumstances, to vote for 
 her admission as a State? On the other hand, 
 if a Constitution should be sent here under the 
 authority of forty enabling acts or Territorial acts, 
 and the evidence should be of such character as 
 to enforce the conviction that the people had 
 never made that Constitution, nor asked for ad- 
 mission under it; that it had been carried by 
 fraud and violence over their heads, and was sent 
 here, that a Government might be made for them 
 which they would abhor and detest, I would have 
 no right to vote for the admission, and no power 
 on earth should compel me to vote for it. How 
 poor and pitiful is all the talk about records and 
 enabling acts, and Territorial acts, and proceed- 
 ings regular in form, and legal bodies, when you 
 know in your heart what the people want and 
 what they do not want, and are required to act 
 under a Constitution which clothes you with a 
 discretion for just such cases, and calls upon you 
 to exercise it wisely and honestly 1 
 
 And now, sir, how is it with this Lecompton 
 Constitution? Let us see whether, in the action 
 of the Convention which formed it, and of the 
 President subsequent to its formation, we have 
 no evidence in confirmation of the opinion I have 
 
had the honor to express in respect to the designs 
 of the Federal Executive; and also let us ob- 
 serve how sadly the expectations of the real 
 friends of popular sovereignty must have been 
 disappointed in the Administration, which could 
 not have had an existence but for their almost 
 superhuman exertions. 
 
 Let us consider, in the first place, as to the 
 constitution of this Lecompton Convention. 
 The President and his friends contend that it 
 was fairly constituted, and fairly represents the 
 people, and the whole power residing in the 
 people ; and, therefore, that it was unnecessary 
 to submit their work — to wit, the Constitution 
 which they had framed — to them, for their rati- 
 fication or rejection. He says the law for its 
 constitution "was, in the main, /afr and just; 
 and it is to be regretted that all the qualified 
 electors had not registered themselves, and voted 
 under its provisions." 
 
 Sir, what are the facts? In answer to this 
 question, I will produce no uncertain testimony ; 
 and, in the main, will rely upon witnesses whom 
 the President is estopped to impeach, and 
 whose testimony was in his possession when he 
 made the statement which I have quoted. Let 
 us see what Governor Walker says upon this 
 point, in his recent letter to the President : 
 
 " That [ihe Lecompton] Convention had vital, not tech- 
 nical defect . in the very substance of" its organization 
 under the Territorial law. which could only be curei', in 
 my judgment — as set forih in my inaugural and other ad- 
 dresses — liy the submission of the Constitution for ratifi- 
 cation or rejection by the people. On reference to the 
 Territorial law under which the Convention was assem- 
 bled thirty- four regularly-organized counties were named 
 as eleclion districts for delegates to the Convention. In 
 each and all of these counties itw^as required by lawthai 
 a census should be taken, and the voters registered ; and 
 when this was completed, the delegates to the Convejiiion 
 should be ajjporioned accordingly, fn nineteen of these 
 counties there was no census, and therefore there could 
 be no such apportionment there of delegates based upon 
 such ceii.sus. And in fifteen of these counties there was 
 no registry of voters. 
 
 "These fifteen counties, including many of the oldest 
 organized counties in the Territory, were entirely disfran- 
 chised, and did not give, ai.d (by no fault of their own) 
 could not give, a solitary vote for delegates to the Con- 
 vention." * * ♦ •' Nor could it be said the.'e counties 
 acquiesced; for, wherever ihey endeavored by a subse- 
 quent census or registry of their own to supply this de- 
 fect, occasioned by the previous neglect of the Territorial 
 officers, the delegates thu.s chosen were rejected by the 
 Convent on 
 
 " 1 repeat, thai in nineteen coanties out of thirty-four, 
 there was no census. In fifteen counties out of thirty- 
 four, there was no registry ; and not a solitary vote was 
 given or cnvld be £f iff n for delegates to t/ie Convention in 
 any one of these counties. Surely, then, it cannot be said 
 that such a Convention, chosen by scarcely more than 
 one-tenth of the pr'»sent voters^in Kansas, represented the 
 people of that Territory, and'could rightfully impose a 
 Constitution upon them wiihoul their consent.'' 
 
 The failure to vote, says Governor Walker, 
 who knows what he says, and proves it, was " no 
 fault of their own." Again, in fifteen counties 
 not a " solitary vote could be given;" yet the 
 President regrets that the qualified voters had 
 not registered themselves and voted ! 
 
 Upon this point. Secretary Stanton, who is no 
 Free State man or Republican, but a Pro-Slavery 
 Democrat, as he himself has told us, says : 
 
 "The ei^nsus thertjin provided for was imperfectly ob- 
 tained from an unwilling people in nineteen counties o( 
 the Territory ; while in ihe remaining counties, being also 
 nineteen in number, from various causes, no attempt was 
 
 made to comply with the law. In some instances, people 
 and officers were alike averse to the procet dings; in 
 others, the officers neglected or refused to act; and in some, 
 there was but a small population and no efficient organi- 
 zation, enabling the people to secure a representation in 
 the Convention." 
 
 There was no remedy whatever for these men 
 who had not been registered, as was proved by 
 actual trial. The case is not left to conjecture, 
 but stands on evidence ; and here it is, in the 
 memorial and protest of the people of Anderson 
 county, Kansas, which I hold in my hand, and 
 which I hope you will all read. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, thus it appears conclusively, 
 and from authority which cannot be disputed, 
 that the people of fifteen at least of the thirty- 
 four counties in the Territory were not and could 
 not be represented in the Convention. Nearly 
 one-half of the people in the Territory were de- 
 prived of the right of being heard in the choice 
 of delegates who were to exercise the highest 
 powers of sovereignty. In one county in which 
 there was no registry, the people did all they 
 could to be represented in the Convention. They 
 held a meeting, at which they voted and elected 
 delegates. That these delegates Avere" the choice 
 of the people of the county, and were elected 
 with as much regularity as the circumstances of 
 the case would permit, and that the county was 
 entitled by its population to two delegates, are 
 facts which do not seem to have been disputed. 
 Yet these delegates were not received. If they 
 had been, the whole action of the Convention 
 might have been reversed. The Constitution 
 was adopted, if I am not misinformed, by a ma- 
 jority of only two votes. If the Anderson dele- 
 gates, who would have represented as many of 
 the people of Kansas as an)- two members of the 
 Convention, had been allowed to vote, the Con- 
 stitution would have been rejected. They were 
 not permitted to vote ; the Constitution was 
 adopted, and is claimed to have been the sover- 
 eign act of the people. It was no such thing. 
 The Lecompton Convention did not represent the 
 sovereignty of the people, for it did not emanate 
 from the people ; therefore the Constitution 
 should have been submitted to them in such 
 manner that, if they did not want it, they could 
 reject it. 
 
 But this has not been done. Let us place our- 
 selves where the people of Kansas were on the 
 21st day of December, and we shall find that 
 they cannot vote upon the Constitution made by 
 that Convention at all. Nine out of every ten of 
 them may dislike it ; they may object seriously, 
 and upon principle, to many of its provisions ; 
 they may not like the power to establish a mam- 
 moth bank ; or they may wish to reserve to the 
 Legislature the power to grant divorces, although 
 I. think it would be unwise to do so; (but it is 
 their business, and they have a right to be heard 
 on it ;) they may object to give to Johnson county, 
 with four hundred voters, as large a representa- 
 tion in the Senate as is allotted to Douglas county 
 with two thousand ; they may desire to be permit- 
 ted to vote for an adopted citizen for Governor, al- 
 though he may not have been naturalized for the 
 full term of twenty years. But, under the Le- 
 compton schedule, they have no opportunity to 
 
TOte on any of these questions, or to say that 
 rather than have the Constitution as it is, they 
 will have none. The Convention only permits 
 them to say whether slaves may hereafter be 
 taken into the State or not. 
 
 The President and his friends in the Senate, 
 Mr. BiGLER and Mr. FiTcn, admit that the ques- 
 tion of Slavery should be submitted to the peo- 
 ple. But even this has not been done. The 
 people are not to say whether they will have 
 Slavery or not, but only in what way they will 
 have it ; only in reference to the future sources 
 of supply ; or, in other words, they are to be 
 allowed to say whether or not the;/ will give to 
 the business of slave-breeding, within the State, 
 the advantage of absolute protection against for- 
 eign competition. Vote any way the people can, 
 and Slavery is fixed in the State, and for- 
 ever, or until the Constitution shall be over- 
 thrown by a revolution. The increase of the 
 slaves in Kansas are protected by the " Consti- 
 tution with no Slavery," and there is no pro- 
 vision by which, under the Constitution, any 
 changes can be made, hereafter, to affect the 
 condition of the slaves now within the Territory, 
 and their descendants. Not only till 18G4, but 
 to the end of time, is the existence of Slavery 
 secured by this Constitution. Though the " Con- 
 stitution with no Slavery" be adopted, it will be 
 with the condition "that the right of property in 
 slaves, now in this Territory, shall in no manner 
 be interfered with;" and as it respects the future, 
 under this Constitution, it is provided that, after 
 186-i, when the Constitution may be altered in 
 all other respects, " no alteration shall be made 
 to affect the rights of property in the ownership 
 of slaves." Thus the people are to be bound, 
 hand and foot, and a few interlopers and mis- 
 creants, assembled at Lecompton, in 1857, will 
 control the millions of people who are to inhabit 
 that broad and beautiful land, for ages and ages. 
 
 And this is Democracy; the Democracy of 
 Slavery! This kind of Democracy — not that of 
 Washington and Jefferson — is fast disappearing 
 from our section of the country. Men in the free 
 North cannot stand it. They are so much alarm- 
 ed by its doctrines, that they will not only repu- 
 diate it for the present and future, but be anxious 
 to prove that they never had anything to do with 
 it their lives long. This Democracy of Slavery 
 will hereafter be in use only as a warning or a 
 fright, and will operate as effectually to preserve 
 our public domain against the ravages of Slavery 
 as the scarecrow set up last summer by one of 
 our down-east farmers did, to protect his corn- 
 field against the depredations of the crows. It 
 was so hideous and terrible, that it not only 
 kept the crows off this year, but frightened them so 
 badly that they brought back the corn they stole last 
 year. 
 
 Sir, the "Constitution with no Slavery" is 
 held, by those who ought to know, to be the 
 best form of a Pro-Slavery Constitution. See 
 what is said by a correspondent of the Jackson 
 Jfitsissipian, writing from Lecompton, on the 27th 
 of November last: 
 
 "Thus you see llial whilst, by submiltinjr the que^iion 
 m this form, they are bound to bare a raUQcaiioii of the 
 
 one or the other ; and thai while it seems to lie nii election 
 between a Free-Siatc and I'ro-bluvery Constitution, it is 
 in fact but a Cjuesliou of the future introduction of Slave- 
 ry that is ill controversy; and yet it furnishes our friends 
 in Congress a basis om which to rest their vindication of 
 the admi.csion of Kansas as a State under it inio the 
 Union ; while they would not have it sent directly from 
 llio Convention. 
 
 •' It is the very best yiroposition for making Kansas a slave 
 State that was submitted for the consideration of the Conven- 
 tion. In addition to what I have stat'd, it cmbriices a 
 provision continuinK in forcit all existing laws of the Ter- 
 ritory until repealed by the Lepisslaturc of the State to be 
 elected under the provisions of this Constituuon." 
 
 The Charleston Mercury entertains similar 
 opinions, as will be seen by the following : 
 
 '• We are equally satisfied with the action of the Con- 
 vention. We dilfer, too, wiih the Pre.<ident, as to what is 
 submitted to the vol-, of ilie people. We do not think that 
 the question of Slavery or no Slavery is submilted to the vou 
 of the people. Whether the clause in the Constitution is voted 
 out or vottd in, Slavery eirists and has a s,tiarantee in the 
 Constitution that it shall not be interfered tpith ; whilst, if 
 the Slavery party in Kansas can keep or get the majority 
 of the Legislature, they may open wide the door for the 
 imm grution of slaves'. But thi-', also, is a small matter 
 of dilTcrence with the President." 
 
 Mr. Chairman, not only are the people of the 
 Territory deprived of the right of voting against 
 the Constitution, and defeating it altogether ; not 
 only are they denied the privilege of voting for a 
 Constitution which prohibits Slavery, but the 
 Free State men, who are admitted to compose 
 an overwhelming majority, have no opportunity 
 allowed them to choose between the two Pro- 
 Slavery forms which were submitted. Their 
 right even to make this choice is dependent on 
 the performance of a condition which, it must 
 have been well known, they cannot do other- 
 wise than reject. 
 
 Section nine of the schedule provides as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 '^Any person offering to vole at the aforessiid election, 
 upon said Cnnsiituiioii. shall, if challenged, take an oaih 
 to support the Constitution of the United Slates, and to 
 support this Constitution if adopted, under the penalties of 
 perjury under the Territorial laws." 
 
 Now, sir, under this schedule, the voter knows, 
 when he offers his ballot, that the Constitution 
 with Slavery may be adopted. He not only has 
 the right to assume, but he does and must as- 
 sume, that it will be. In this case, may is equiv- 
 alent to must. He must be prepared to say and 
 swear that he will support the Constitution in 
 whichever of the two forms proposed it may be 
 adopted. Suppose it to be accepted "with Sla- 
 very " — as in fact it has been — and one of its 
 sections will read in these words : 
 
 " The right of properly ij before and higher than »ny con- 
 stitutional sanction, and the rjxht of the owner n/a slave to 
 nceh slave and its increase is the same, and as inviolabU as 
 the right of the owner of any property whatever.'^ 
 
 Thus the citizen who offers his ballc* may be 
 required, before he can deposit it, to swear that 
 he will support and maintain, as a great funda- 
 mental truth, as one of the axioms of government, 
 the proposition that the right to hold human 
 beings in Slavery is before and higher than any 
 constitutional sanction ; or, in other words, is 
 founded in absolute and eternal justice. All this 
 he must swear, or he cannot vote. It ia not 
 enough that he should make oath that he is of 
 lawful age; that he is an American citizen; that 
 ho has been a resident of the Territory the term 
 
8 
 
 required by law, and is ia all respects a qualified 
 voter ; but he is esteemed unfit to vote concerning 
 the institutions under which he is to live, unless 
 he will recognise, by an appeal to the God of 
 truth, the baldest, bitterest lie that ever blistered 
 human lips. 
 
 Speaking of this system, General Cass said, in 
 his Nebraska speech : 
 
 ''Slavery U, in my opinion, a? I have fai* more than 
 onco before in llie S -nate, and. I hiive no lionbl. unac- 
 cepmbly to many, a great evil, social u"d political." 
 
 Henry Clay declared that it could never be de- 
 fended, " so long as the light of reason and the 
 love of liberty remained among men." To the 
 mind of Daniel Webster it was a thing " ac- 
 cursed." Thomas Jefferson denounced the traffic 
 npon which it was founded as "pinACY" and 
 " THE OPPKOBHIUM OP Infidel Poweus." Lord 
 Brougham has characterized its fundamental idea 
 as a "wild and guilty fantasy." John Wesley 
 pronounced it "the sum of all villianies." The 
 great master of the drama, who understood so 
 well all the sides and relations of human life, to 
 whose marvellous insight nothing concerning man 
 was impenetrable, speaks of it as a "curse," and 
 as feeding its victims with " distressful bread ; " 
 and our blessed Lord and Saviour has condemned 
 it in all the lessons of His life, not less than in 
 the memorable words, "All things whatsoever ye 
 would that men should do unto you, do ye even 
 so to them." But now, in the last half of the 
 nineteenth century, in free democratic America, 
 the people are not to be intrusted with the exer- 
 cise of one of their dearest rights, until they de- 
 clare that they will maintain, protect, and uphold 
 this system, as founded in natural right, so help 
 TOEM God ! 
 
 And, sir, the Free State men of Kansas must 
 have foreseen that in any possible event, whether 
 they should attempt to vote or not, a majority of 
 the votes were to be counted and returned for 
 the Pro-Slavery side. They knew that the men 
 who had counted twelve hundred votes in Oxford 
 precinct would be ready to do it again if neces- 
 sary. They saw that the army, whose protection 
 had been refused them when they had needed it, 
 would be employed to protect voters from abroad, 
 if required. And the event has justified their 
 anticipations. Thirteen hundred votes were given 
 in Oxford, not one hundred of which can be le- 
 gal — but they are to be considered legal, and no 
 evidence will be permitted to affect their recep- 
 tion. President Pierce, in his special message of 
 January 24lh, 1856, told the Free State men, "it 
 is not the duty of the President of the United 
 States to volunteer interposition by force to pre- 
 serve the purity of elections, either in a State or 
 Territory. To do so, would be subversive of 
 public freedom." Oh, no! the army may not be 
 used to protect the actual residents and legal 
 voters in 1 855 and 1 85G, Avho are for free Kansas ; 
 but is to be paraded around the polls and the 
 
 avenues thereto in 1857, to guard the Missou- 
 rians, who have come over to the Territory on 
 the neighborly errand of voting a Constitution 
 for its people, which establishes Slavery as an 
 unchangeable system among them. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the "Constitution with Sla- 
 very " was accepted on the 21st of December, by 
 the vote of a meager minority of the actual resi- 
 dents of Kansas. It is to be the organic, funda- 
 mental law of that State, unchangeable forever 
 in respect to Slavery, as appears from a provision 
 which I have already cited, and will here read 
 again — it is in the section (fourteen) of the 
 schedule which refers to the future amendment 
 of the Constitution, and is as follows: "i?M< no 
 alteration shall be made to affect the rights of property 
 in the oicnership of slaves." In no way but by 
 revolution can a change be effected in the slavery 
 provisions of this Constitution, and should a 
 movement of this kind be resorted to by four- 
 fifths of the people, the President stands ready 
 with the army of the United States to crush it 
 and those who participate in it. 
 
 That the people might have voted on the 21st 
 of December, and prevented the adoption of this 
 Constitution, is, as I have shown, a palpable and 
 vital error. But, let me repeat, the Free State 
 men, who are admitted on all hands, even by 
 Calhoun and the Border Ruffians, to be largely 
 in the majority, were excluded from the ballot- 
 box by the oath which I have read;/07- they could 
 not take that oath and be Free Stale 7>ien. But if 
 no such oath had been interposed, how would 
 the case have stood? The election was under 
 the entire control of the architects of the Oxford 
 and McGee frauds, and those who had procured 
 or connived at the voting of Missouriaus in pre- 
 vious elections ; and the Administration at 
 Washington had, by its rebuke of Governor 
 Walker and Secretary Stanton, for their rejec- 
 tion of false and fraudulent returns, intimated, 
 in the most unequivocal manner, that any meas- 
 ures necessary to carry the points of the Propa- 
 gandists would be approved, or, at least, winked 
 at. And besides, even if the election had been 
 committed to the supervision of just and impar- 
 tial men, who would have received and counted 
 all legal votes, and no others, there would, 
 nevertheless, have been no opportunity for a 
 vote against the Constitution, nor whether Sla- 
 very should or should not exist in the new State. 
 The people were only permitted to say from 
 what sources the future supplies of slaves should 
 be derived. 
 
 Sir, with this plain and truthful statement, 
 which defies contradiction, what an insult is it 
 to the intelligence of this country, what a cruel 
 mockery to the abused people of Kansas, for the 
 President and his masters to declare that the 
 dreadful responsibility of making Kansas a slave 
 State, if such it shall be, rests with the Free 
 State men of that Territory ! 
 
 BUELL 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS. 
 
 1858. 
 

 :j'i,>'^:\(ii^H*lifi^BC>'v :* -".4 -'', 
 
 iSBi^^M^^Bf H^' '?*•■;■■■ jav%'-- *' I.- •■ ■ 
 
 /■•■r'wv '■•■ ■ ■ -jt-"'!'.aHHHBi^fc •■'-■•■■ ■ •■■• 
 
 
 
 \w.7i '^>i*y^^\. ■=:-»T.f'''5,v' ■'. 
 
 >^«tj*^ 
 
 
t ,v.Y»- .■^^*, >J»ttte* 
 
 :MV 
 
 
 ■■ K' 
 
 v<. -■'-- 
 
 *.■ ;/^-*>;" 
 
 
 LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 mil mil nil III 
 016 094 443 2