KANSAS STATE RIGHTS.
AN APPEAL TO THE DEMOCRACY
OF
TEIHE SOUTH,
BY
A Southern Sftte-Rights Democrat.
WASHINGTON:
HENRY POLKINHORN, PRINTER.
1857.








INTRODUC TI ON.
The following Address was prepared for publication more than a month ago, Peculiar circumstances have delayed its appearance. It is believed its publicity at this
time is more important than ever, and that the public mind is now better prepared to understand the facts, and acknowledge the truths it contains than when it was excited and
fomented by violent partizan discussions.
The recent letter of President Buchanan in reply to a number of Clergymen and others,
Electors of the State of Connecticut, setting forth the condition of affairs in Kansas, is now
annexed to this address. It sustains all the positions assumed by the writer in reference
to the approval by the Administration of Governor Walker's course in Kansas; and their
participancy in the results of that policy, is an irresistible inference.
If this effort shall present in its true light, the vexed questions on the subject of Kansas,
as it is intended to do, assuage the animosities of partizan feeling in the coming Congress,
and prevent violent and protracted discussions on the points involved, the labor of the
writer will not have been in vain.
WASHINGTON, D. C. September 5th, 1857.








AN APPEAIL
TO THE
DEMOCRACY OF THE SOUTH.
FELLOW-CITIZENS:
Having only a desire to maintain the peace and welfare of our
common country, and to contribute to the preservation of the harmony
of the great National Democratic party, I am of opinion that a clear and
dispassionate exposition of the real features of the Nebraska-Kansas bill
will be acceptable to those to whom true official information on the subject is inaccessible. It is believed that such an impartial elucidation as
is now proposed will tend to unriddle the current misunderstandings, correct the errors of misguided partisans, and restore confidence and general
good will.
For over three years, "Kansas" has been the fruitful mother of agitation. By false correspondence and wilful editorial misrepresentation
the Black Republican journals, so far as in them lay the power, have
diverted public opinion from the truth. Orators and politicians of the
same school, incited by the same desires, and conspiring for the same end,
have consistently perverted not only the wise lessons of the past, but the
actual teachings of the present. On the other hand, " Kansas" was made
the rallying cry of the Democracy; it united the Democratic forces in
localities where there had been temporary misunderstandings; gave both
a tangible constitutional groundwork for united action; under the benign
and powerful influence of which, the machinations and frauds of a powerful rival party were torn into rank exposure, and that glorious victory
won, whicl proclaimed its truth, virtue, and constitutional supremacy, in
the election of James Buchanan to the Presidency of the United States.
Europe not less than America was excited by the struggle and chastened
by the issue. The English allies of the Black Republican party, who
applaud disorganizers here, in the vain hope of perpetuating those political feuds, from which, under every clime, England always derives power,
sank beneath the immense manufacturing interests which depend so vitally
on the peace and Democratic administration of this country.
The advent of Mr. Buchanan to the Presidential chair even commanded from his political enemies such tokens of half-expressed, but strongly




6
evidenced reliance in the wisdom of the Democratic choice, as even tempered with personal courtesy the asperities which a party virulence, hitherto almost unparalled, had created.
The machinery of the new government was set in motion. A cabinet,
representing all the interests of the country, was appointed. Kansas,
which had given such strength to the Democratic party, was to be satisfactorily adjusted; and after long consultation and deep anxiety a Democrat, with a name made historic by great national deeds, was offered the
governorship of that Territory. He accepted it. The peculiarity of his
mission will appear by the present exposition of the Nebraska-Kansas
act, and the debates upon it. It is only needful here to remark that with
a strange inconsistency a wing of that party which had supported the
measures he went to Kansas to carry out, raised a cry against him in the
first instance, and has since violently opposed the administration under
whose commission the Governor of Kansas wields the standard of the
law and the Constitution. Departing, in the first instance, from the
principles they supported, those who have gone into opposition have been,
naturally enough, necessitated to sustain themselves in a world of misconstruction and misrepresentation.
It was declared by the people of the United States that among the objects for establishing the Constitution, were the formation of a more perfect union, the security of domestic tranquillity, and the promotion of the
general welfare of the country. Had these objects been kept continually
in view, the Constitution made a more perfect study, and rigidly and obstinately adhered to, it would not be necessary to-day to review and explain Kansas State rights, and the act of Congress which has conferred
them upon her. Had statesmen studied the Constitution attentively and
more understandingly, preserving inviolate and intact its supremacy over
the unholy ambition of selfish politicians, we should have had no " compromise" under the Constitution, the very name of which implies the
yielding or confession of some point or error that should never have been
permitted to disgrace the national statutes of the country, thus bartering
away the very rights secured to us under the organic law, and hazarding
the very objects for which the Constitution was established. It were in
vain, under these circumstances, for men to swear to preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, when, either through
design or in ignorance of its inviolable provisions, they undertake to effect
compromises made in direct violation of the instrument itself.
And so with the State rights of Kansas.
It is impossible for men to speak or act wisely or judiciously on this




subject without a full knowledge of, and acquaintance with, the act of
Congress creating the territorial government of Kansas, called the " Nebraska-Kansas Bill." And no accusation of a violation of principles contained in that act can be honestly argued upon, much less honestly maintained, without the principles themselves being clearly laid down and understood.
As early as 1844 an attempt was made in the House of Representatives by Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, to establish a Territory for Nebraska;
but, for all necessary purposes, a concise history of the present bill is
only needed to correct misguided opinion.
In the Senate, on the 14th December, 1853, Mr. Dodge, of Iowa, introduced a bill to organize the Territory of Nebraska, which was referred to
the Committee on Territories.
On the 4th January, 1854, Mr. Douglas reported the bill, with amendments, to the Senate.
On the 16th January, 1854, Senator Dixon, of Kentucky, offered an
amendment, declaring that the Missouri Compromise should not apply to
this Territory, or to any other Territory of the United States; but that
the citizens of the several States, or Territories, should " be at liberty
to take and hold their slaves within any of the Territories of the United
States, or of the States to be formed therefrom, as if the said act, entitled
as aforesaid, and approved as aforesaid, had never been passed." The
compromise contained in the act of 6th March, 1820, admitting Missouri
as a State, is as follows:
"That in all that territory ceded by France to the United States,
under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36 degrees 30 minutes'north latitude, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the
punishment of crimes whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted,'shall be forever prohibited."
The next day Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, gave notice of an amendment declaring that the Missouri Compromise should in no way be
abrogated or contravened.
On the 23d January Mr. Douglas, of the Committee on Territories,
reported back the bill, with a substitute for the original bill, by which
two Territories were to be created, Nebraska and Kansas, to be admitted
with or without slavery, as their constitutions might prescribe. The substitute concluded with the following enactment:
"Sec. 21. That, in order to avoid all misconstruction, it is hereby'declared to be the true intent and meaning of this act, so far as the'question of slavery is concerned, to carry into practical operation the'following propositions and principles, established by the' compromise' measures of 1850,' to wit:




8
First. That all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and
in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision
of the people residing therein, through their appropriate representatives.
Second. That " all cases involving title to slaves " and questions of
"personal freedom" are referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Third. That the provisions of the Constitution and laws of the United
States in respect to fugitives from service are to be carried into faithful
execution in all the "organized Territories the same as in the States."
The 14th section, providing for the election of a Delegate, and giving
force and effect to the Constitution and all laws of the United States not
locally inapplicable within the said Territories, was also amended as
follows:
"Except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of'Missouri into the Union, approved March 6th, 1820, which was superceded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the
- Compromise Measures, and is declared inoperative."
On the 2d July Mr. Chase, of Ohio, moved to amend the 14th section
by striking out "was superceded by, &c.," which, after debate was lost,
but which led Mr. Douglas to change the phraseology of the section by
the following amendment, introduced on the 7th of February:
"Which (the Missouri Compromise) being inconsistent with the prin-' ciples of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and
Territories, as recognised by the legislation of 1850, commonly called' the Compromise Measures, is hereby declared inoperative 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 people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic
institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the' United States."
On the 15th of February, after an animated debate, this section as
amended was adopted by a vote of 35 to 10, General Houston, of Texas,
being the only Southern Senator voting against it.
Mr. Chase on the same day then offered the following amendment in
continuation:
"Under which the people of the Territory, through their appropriate' representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit the existence of slavery' therein."
A heated discussion ensued on this amendment, which lasted until the
2d March, when it was lost by a vote of 10 to 36.
On the same day Mr. Badger offered and introduced his celebrated
proviso, thus:
"Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive
i or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to




9' the act of the 6th March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibit-' ing, or abolishing slavery."
It is remarkable that no debate whatever took place on this amendment offered by Mr. Badger, but the yeas and nays were immediately
called for, and it was adopted by the following vote-yeas 35, nays 6:
YEAS. —Messrs. Atchison of Misssouri, Badger of North Carolina, Bell
of Tennessee, Benjamin of Louisiana, Broadhead of Pennsylvania, Butler
of South Carolina, Clay of Alabama, Dawson of Georgia, Dixon of Kentucky, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas of Illinois, Evans of South Carolina, Fish
of New York, Fitzpatrick of Alabama, Foot of Vermont, Gwin of California, Hamlin of Maine, Houston of Texas, Hunter of Virginia, Jones
of Iowa, Jones of Tennessee, Mason of Virginia, Morton of Florida, Norris of New Hampshire, Pettit of Indiana, Pratt of Maryland, Seward of
New York, Shields of Illinois, Slidell of Louisiana, Smith of Connecticut,
Stuart of Michigan, Toucey of Connecticut, Walker of Wisconsin, Weller
of California, and Williams of New Hampshire-35.
NAYS-Adams and Brown of Mississippi, Dodge of Wisconsin, Johnson
and Sebastian of Arkankas, and Rusk of Texas-6.
The 14th section, as finally adopted, superseded the 21st section of the
bill, which was entirely stricken out. All the other provisions of the bill
being finally agreed upon, it passed the Senate on the night session of the
3d of March, (which continned until 5 A. M. of the 4th,) by a vote of 37
yeas to 14 nays-General Houston of Texas, and Mr. Bell of Tennessee,
being the only Southern Senators who voted in the negative.
The House bill, reported by Mr. Richardson, was the same as first
introduced in the Senate; and after a debate on it from the 31st January, 1854, to the 22d May, Mr. Richardson moved to substitute the Senate bill, which was adopted, and which then became the House bill; and
on the same day, finally passed the House, by a vote of 113 yeas to 100
nays. During the debate in the House, however, the Senate bill, with
the Badger proviso, was fully discussed.
Mr. J. S. Millson, of Virginia, (Democrat,) voted against the bill, on
account of the Badger proviso, which, he contended, did injustice to the
South. The other Southern members who voted in the negative were
Messrs. Hunt of Louisiana, Cullom and Etheridge of Tennessee, Rodgers
and Puryear of North Carolina, (all Whigs,) and Mr. Benton of Missouri
(Democrat)-who were opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
On the 23d of May, the House bill, as now adopted, was sent to the
Senate. On the 25th of May, the Senate took up the House bill, and
passed it, by a vote of 35 yeas to 13 nays, as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Atchison of Missouri, Badger of North Carolina, Benjamin of Louisiana, Broadhead of Pennsylvania, Brown of Mississippi,
Butler of South Carolina, Cass of Michigan, Clay of Alabama, Dawson of
2




10
Georgia, Douglas of Illinois, Fitzpatrick of Alabama, Gwin of California,
Hunter of Virginia, Johnson of Arkansas, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tennessee, Mallory of Florida, Mason of Virginia, Morton of Florida, Norris
of New Hampshire, Pearce of Maryland, Pettit of Indiana, Pratt of Maryland, Rusk of Texas, Sebastian of Arkansas, Shields of Illinois, Stuart
of Michigan, Thompson of Kentucky, Thomson of New Jersey, Toombs
of Georgia, Toucey of Connecticut, Weller of California, Williams of N.
Hampshire, and Wright of New Jersey-35.
NAYs-Messrs. Allen of R. Island, Bell of Tennessee, Chase of Ohio,
Clayton of Delaware, Fish of N. York, Foot of Vermont, Gillette of Maine,
Hamlin of Maine, James of Rhode Island, Seward of New York, Sumner
of Massachusetts, Wade of Ohio, and Walker of Wisconsin-13.
Thus it will be perceived that four out of five of the Southern Senators
who voted against the "Badger proviso"-(Mr. Adams, of Mississippi,
being absent on the final vote)-voted for it on the final passage of the
bill; Messrs. Bell of Tennessee, (who voted for the proviso,) and Clayton
of Delaware, being the only two Southern Senators voting in the
negative.
The main facts of the history of the passage of the bill having been
thus presented, it will only be necessary now to state that the section of
the bill establishing a Territory for Kansas, (which is precisely the same
as that enacted for Nebraska,) after defining her boundary line, enacts"And when admitted as a State or States, the said Territory, or any' portion of the same, shall be received into the Union with or without'Slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe, at the time of their' admission."
The 23d section provides, "that the right of suffrage and of holding
office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States, and those' who shall have declared on oath their intention to become such, and shall' have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and' the provisions of this act."
It was enacted, that every free white male inhabitant, above the age of
21 years, who should be an actual resident of said Territory, should be
entitled to vote at the first election, under the above provision; and the
qualifications of voters, and of holding office, at all subsequent elections,
should be such as prescribed hereafter by the Legislative Assembly, subject only to the conditions provided for in the above section.
To understand clearly and distinctly the force of the legislation on
this bill providing for a territorial government in Kansas, which it is now
proposed to review, the following statement to those not perfectly familiar with the subject, will be necessary.
On the 30th April, 1803, France, by treaty, ceded the Territory of
Ijouisiana to the United States, the third article of which is as follows:
Article 3d. " The inhabitants of the ceded Territory shall be incorpo



11' rated into the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as
possible, according to the principles ot the Federal Constitution, to the'enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of' the United States, and in the mean time, they shall be maintained and'protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion
they profess."
The Territory of Louisiana embraced all the territory now included in
the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa, and the Territories of Kansas, Nebraska, and Minnesota. Before this treaty, slavery
existed in the colony of Louisiana, both under the French and Spanish
Governments.
The 2d section of the 6th article of the Constitution of the United
States declares that this Constitution, and the laws of the United States
which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which
shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding.
By the 16th section of the act of Congress of 1812, establishing a territorial government for Missouri, it is provided that " THE LAWS AND' REGULATIONS IN FORCE in the Territory of Louisiana, at the commence-' ment of this act, and not inconsistent with the provisions thereof, SHALL
CONTINUE IN FORCE UNTIL ALTERED, MOLIFIED, OR REPEALED BY THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY."
The General Assembly of the Territory of Missouri, on 22d January,
1817, passed "an act respecting slaves, and for other purposes;" which
embraced the better protection and security of slave property.
Thus, it will be perceived, the old French and Spanish laws with regard to slavery in the Territory of Louisiana were declared in force and
TO CONTINUE IN FORCE in the TERRITORY OF MISSOURI at the time of establishing a territorial government for her by Congress. The treaty with
France guaranteed the right of the institution of slavery in ALL THAT
TERRITORY SO ceded.
The 8th section of the act of 1820, admitting Missouri as a State in
the Union, contains the clause of the Missouri Compromise prohibiting
slavery forever from all that part of the territory acquired by the Louisiana cession, outside of Missouri, north of 36~ 30', north latitude.
This Missouri Compromise, though in violent conflict with the 3d article of the treaty with France, with the 16th section of the act of Congress of 1812, and the Constitution of the United States, in express terms
repealed no law whatever then in existence in the Territorv.




12
The 14th section of the Nebraska-Kansas bill declares the Missouri
Compromise act inconsistent with the legislation of the compromise
measures of 1850, and inoperative and void; "it being the true intent and'meaning of the act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State,' nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly' free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way,'subject only to the Constitution of the United States."
Had this section rested here, without the "Badger proviso,"'the true'intent and meaning of this act" would have clearly been fulfilled, and
the rights of the South in regard to slavery fully restored under the
treaty with France of 1803, and the original provisions of the Constitution, from whence they should never have been wrested.
The repeal of the Missouri Compromise, prohibiting slavery forever
north of 36~ 30', revived all the laws relating to slavery that previously
existed under the treaty of 1803 and prior to 1820. Because it is a well
settled rule of law that where an act repealing an act is afterwards itself
repealed, the original act is revived without any legislation whatever.
Mr. Badger, in his speech of the 20th March, 1854, explaining the
intent of his proviso, took precisely the opposite ground herein maintained. He undertook " to demonstrate that the bill without the proviso
had precisely the same legal effect and operation, and none other, as it
had with the proviso."  He argued that if the language of the section
had ended with the words "is hereby declared inoperative and void,"
then the result would have been clear that the former laws in relation to
slavery in the Louisiana Territory would have been revived. But he
maintained the additional words, "it being the true intent and meaning
of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory," &c., prevented
the revival of any former law existing prior to 1820, because, otherwise,
Congress would have indirectly legislated slavery into the Territory by
the revival of the former laws. "To put an end to any possibility of
such misinterpretation," says Mr. Badger, (that is, that the amendment
should not set up or revive any previous law of the Territory,) "I submitted the proviso which was adopted by the Senate."
The simple question then arises, does Congress legislate slavery into a
Territory, where it had previously existed, by the repeal of a law which
had unconstitutionally prohibited it?  It is clear that it does not, Mr.
Badger to the contrary notwithstanding. Mr. Millson, in his forcible
and able speech of the 23d March, 1854, in opposition to Mr. Badger's
position, takes the following impregnable and incontrovertable ground.
He says:




13
"Sir, suppose it should happen, from the accidental absence of some'five or ten Southern senators, and some fifteen or twenty Southern mem-'bers of the House, that a majority in Congress should enact a law abol-'ishing slavery in the District of Columbia. Suppose that a week after-'wards, when the absent members returned, and the proper majority was'restored, a bill should be immediately introduced to annul the law.'What would be thought of Southern members who should declare that'they could not consent to revive any law by which slavery was allowed'or protected, as that would be to legislate slavery into a Territory, and'who should insist on inserting a clause providing that it was not their' intention to do so?"
Mr. J. J. Lindley, of Missouri, on the 18th May, 1854, held the same
opinion.
This is the true position, and presents the whole case with noonday
clearness, free from all cavil or ambiguity. It demonstrates the fact,
beyond all doubt, and with indisputable certainty, that the "Badger
proviso," though it may have intended not to legislate slavery into the
Territory, CLEARLY LEGISLATED SLAVERY OUT OF THE TERRITORY, by
providing "that nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or
put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the
act of the 6th March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting,
or abolishing slavery."  It was, in fact, an indirect legislation, having
for its effect the revival of the Missouri Compromise; and were it not for
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the " Dred
Scott case" pronouncing the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, it
would be a question to-day whether the "Badger proviso" did not, by
prohibiting the revival of any act protecting slavery in the Territories,
restore in effect the Missouri Compromise, notwithstanding the clause in
the section leaving it to the people to regulate their domestic institutions
in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.
How were the people in Kansas to regulate their institutions in their own
way, provided they desired to establish slavery by their constitution, and
which would then most certainly revive and put in force the laws that
existed prior to 1820 protecting slavery, when the "Badger proviso"
solemnly declares that the people of the Territory shall not revive or put
in force any such law?
If this position is not clearly elucidated, the exemplification of Mr.
Francis B. Cutting, (whose motives, although suspected at the time, in regard to this bill were, no doubt, misconstrued, as he voted for it,) puts
it beyond all question. His opinion, at least, as a distinguished lawyer,
on this point, is entitled to great consideration. In his speech of the 21st
March, 1854, he said:




14
" Plain men, who are not astute lawyers, become bewildered in the
midst of this multitude of words and accumulation of sentences. They'comprehend distinctly that when this territory was ceded to the United' States, there were laws supposed to exist, or regulations and customs' which originated with the former owners, the Spaniards and French, by'which slavery was recognized and protected as an existing and valid in-'stitution.  These laws and usages would still have prevailed but for'the eighth section of the act in relation to the admission of Missouri as'a State. This section was proposed to be repealed by the Senate in' order to remove any and all legislation by Congress, so as to leave this' Territory in the same condition as if it had never interfered.
" In this position of affairs, Mr. Badger proposed an amendment, which'was carried, by which it was declared that the system which existed (and'but for the intervention of Congress would still have existed) prior to
1820, shall not be revived or put in force! What is this but the aboli-'tion by Congress of the Spanish and French law?  Is not this congres-' sional interference and congressional legislation against slavery?
" Thus, plain men, who can appreciate a fact, find that if this bill shall'pass, laws which were in existence when the territory came into posses-'sion of the United States, and which recognized and protected slavery'in the province of Louisiana, are, by the action of Congress, by the Bad-'ger proviso, rendered inoperative and of no force or effect. Plain men
see that in 1803 the laws and customs then existing recognized the con-'dition of slavery, whilst in 1854 Congress proposes to declare that they'shall not be deemed to be in force! Can it be denied that this is the'effect of congressional action? Or, can it be pretended that the Badger'proviso means nothing?
" t is the South that will find, in the long run, that, so far from being'beneficial to them, it will be, when applied to future acquisitions, the most'fatal measure that, as yet, has been proposed, assuming that the Badger'proviso is retained. It is eminently a measure favorable to the North,' and, upon a full and fair discussion, in my humble judgment, it can be'proved to be so."
Mr. W. P. Harris, of Mississippi, took substantially the same ground.
He said, in his noted speech of the 24th and 26th of April, 1854:
" I will now proceed to consider that proviso, (Badger's,) and state, at'the outset, that its effect is to take from the repeal of the Missouri act'everything but the name of repeal. It annuls the act, but declares that'the evil which it did shall live after it; that its consequences shall con-'tinue, and this, too, in the name of non-intervention!"
Mr. Harris said that when he went home to his constituents if asked
if the Missouri Compromise was repealed, he could not say it really was,
but that " it was so put down in the bill," and that all they got was "a
tabula rasa!"
In alluding to Mr. Millson's speech, he said, " I undertake to say that
(it is the hinge on which southern opinion must turn, and deserves to be'gravely considered in courts and legislatures."




15
Gov. Brown, of Mississippi, in explaining his vote against the Badger
proviso, on 20th March, 1854, expressed, in substance, the same opinion,
that it was contrary to the doctrine of non-intervention.
We have already seen that the result and the truth of Mr. Cutting's
remarks, have become established. The prediction of Mr. Harris in regard to Mr. Millson's arugment is now becoming verified. The fact,
however, stands patent and emblazoned on the record that Congress did,
virtually, by the Badger proviso, legislate Kansas free!
As a Southern State-Rights Democrat, I have ever held that Congress
had no power to destroy the right of protection to slavery wherever it
may exist. This is the true State rights doctrine, and it must be admitted that Congress did destroy that right after the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise by the adoption of the "Badger proviso." Its adoption by
the Senate, without debate, (Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas being the
only southern States voting against it,) can only be accounted by the fact
that it was generally conceded at the time these territories would never
become slave States.
General Cass, on this point, in his speech of 20th February, 1854, said,
"no human power can ever establish it (slavery) in the regions defined by
these bills;" and he cites Mr. Clay, and Mr. Webster also, who both
held in 1850 that "it was excluded by a law superior to that which ad-'mits it elsewhere. The law of nature, of physical geography, the law' of the formation of the earth. That law settles forever, with a strength' beyond the terms of human enactment, that slavery cannot exist there."
Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, expressed the same sentiment. He said, in
his speech of 24th February, 1854, "Does any man believe that you will' have a slaveholding State in Kansas or Nebraska?"
Gov. Brown, of Mississippi, at the same time, believed "that slavery' would never find a resting place in those territories."
Mr. Douglas said, "I do not believe there is a man in Congress who
thinks it could be permanently a slaveholding country."
" Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, said, "I have no more idea of seeing'a slave population in either of them than I have of seeing it in Massa-' chusetts."
Mr. Millson, of Virginia, said, " No one expects it. No one dreams' that slavery will be established there."
Mr. Frederick P. Stanton, of Tennessee, said, "The fears of Northern'gentlemen are wholly unfounded. Slavery will not be established in' Kansas and Nebraska."
The late Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, said, in his speech of 15th




16
March, 1854, "if the natural laws of climate and of soil exclude us from
a territory of which we are the joint owners, we shall not and we will
not complain."
Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, in the debate in the Senate, 2d March,
1854, said, "If two States should ever come into the Union from them,' (the Territories,) it is very certain that not more than one of them could,' in any possible event, be a slaveholding State; and I have not the least'idea that even one would be."
Mr. Keitt, of South Carolina, in his speech, 30th March, quoted Mr.
Pinckney of his own State, that, "Practically, he thought slavery would
4 not go above the line of 36~ 30' by the laws of physical geography, and' therefore, that the South lost no territory fit for slavery."
There is but one other point in the legislation of this bill to which attention is desired to be directed. It is declared, in the 14th section, that
the people of said Territories shall be left " perfectly free to form and' regulate their domestic institutions in their own way," &c.
This is the incorporation of the language of Gen. Cass, in his celebrated letter to Mr. Nicholson, and, in strict conformity with it, the people
must be left perfectly free to adopt such a course, or pass such laws for
their governance and regulation on all subjects, as they shall deem proper, without the dictation, construction, or interference of any outsiders
whatever.
The authority of the distinguished Senator Toombs, of Georgia, on this
subject, will be considered orthodox. In his speech of 23d February,
1854, he' said:
"' In all governments the acquisitions of the State belong rightfully to
the people; much more strongly does this principle apply to a purely
popular government. Therefore any exercise of power to injure or de-' stroy those who have equal rights of enjoyment is arbitrary, unauthor-'ized by the contract, and despotic."
"Every citizen of each State carries with him into the Territories this
equal right of enjoyment of the common domain. Whether there be
one, ten, one hundred, one thousand, or one million who may emigrate'thither, they have all the same indestructible right. *  *  *  You'have no power to strike from the meanest Indian trapper, the basest'trader, or camp-follower, as the Senator from New York [Mr. Seward]' styled the people in these Territories, their equal privileges-this sov-' ereignty of right, which is the birthright of every American citizen."
Again, as a delegate of the Convention of Georgia, held to take into
consideration the grievances alleged to have been inflicted upon her by
the compromise measures of 1850, and the admission of California, Mr.
Toombs said:




li
I have already attempted to vindicate the right of a people, forming
a constitution for their admission into the Union, to admit or exclude'slavery, at their own pleasure, and to prove that Congress had no other'power over such constitution thus presented than to see that it is repub-'lican.  *  *  *  The right of a free people in entering the family of'American States, to adopt such a form of republican government as in' their judgment will best preserve their liberties, promote their happi-' ness, and perpetuate their prosperity. If we are wise we will defend' rather than resist this birth-right of American freemen, so invaluable to
us, so formidable to the enemies of our property, our peace, and our' safety."
The Hon. A. 1t. Stephens, of Georgia, whose profound abilities are
universally acknowlecdged, argued this question at great length in his
speech of the 17th February, 1854, in which he said:
" The principles on which that position rests, lies at the very founda-'tion of all our republican institutions; it is that the citizens of every' district and separate community or State should have the right to gov-'ern themselves in their domestic matters as they please, and that they' should be free from the intermeddling restrictions and arbitrary dicta(tion on such matters from any other power or government [or people]'in which they'have no voice."  *    *    *          *    *     *
"And where do you, calling yourselves Democrats from the North,
stand upon this great question of popular rights? Do you consider it' democratic to exercise the high prerogative of stifling the voice of the' adventurous pioneer and restricting his suffrage in a matter concerning
his own interest, happiness, and government, which he is much more capable of deciding than you are?"    *    *     *    *    *     *
" We do not ask you to force Southern institutions, or our form of civil'polity upon them; but to let the free emigrants to our vast public
domain, in every part and parcel of it, settle this question for them-'selves, with all the experience, intelligence, virtue, and patriotism they
may carry with them.  This, sir, is our position. It is, sir, as I have'said, the original position of the South."  *   *      *       *
" Let it be the pride of us all in this Congress to reaffirm the princi-'ple-make it co-extensive with your limits-inscribe it upon your'banners —make it as broad as your Constitution-proclaim it every-'where —that the people of the common Territories of the Union, where-'ever the flag floats, shall have the right to form such Republican insti-' tutions as they please."
The construction thus put upon this clause in the 14th settion, by two
of our most distinguished statesmen, must be perfectly satisfactory to our
most ultra friends.
These were the State rights to be conferred upon Kansas by this bill,
while the generally-expressed belief prevailed BEFORE ITS PASSAGE that
she would become a free State!
Now, let us very briefly follow the history of this Territory after its
3




18
creation. The Free-Soil party of the North, after the passage of the
bill, insultingly taunted the South by repeated declarations that slavery
should never be established in Kansas. This produced rancorous feelings of opposition, and finally led to violent party fueds and bloody strife.
Governor Reeder, soon after his arrival in Kansas, set himself up in
opposition to the Territorial Legislature, and took sides with the FreeSoil party. He was recalled by President Pierce, who, in January,
1856, sent a special message to Congress on the then distracted state of
the Territory, and recommended the passage of an act to admit Kansas
into the Union as a State. This message was referred, in the Senate, to
the Committee on Territories, and in the House to the Committee of
the Whole on the state of the Union.
On the 12th of March following, a bill was introduced in the Senate
authorizing the people of Kansas to form a constitution and State Government preparatory to their admission into the Union, which bill, after
the rejection of several amendments, was debated until the 2d July,
1856, and finally passed, with Mr. Clayton's amendment, that no law in
the Territory should prohibit free discussion in Kansas on slavery, prohibiting the test oath, and insuring trial by jury, &c. This bill went to
the House, and on 28th July, 1856, all after the enacting clause was
struck out, and the House bill substituted.
On the 30th of June, 1856, the House took into consideration a bill
for the admission of Kansas under the Topeka Convention, with a section
repealing the 14th section of the Nebraska-Kansas bill, which was lost
by a vote of 106 yeas to 107 nays. It was afterwards reconsidered and
passed on the 3d of July by a vote of 99 yeas to 97 nays.
On the 8th July the House bill was taken up in the Senate, and all
after the enacting clause was struck out, and the Senate bill substituted.
Thus neither bill passed Congress.
It is not necessary here to notice the further proceedings of the 84th
Congress in relation to Kansas, or to wade through the thousands of
pages of heated arguments on the entangled questions of that day, which
swell the volumes of the Congressional debates. It will be sufficient to
state that the Southern delegation generally maintained that the people
of these Territories, through their Legislature, had a right to regulate
all laws for their government in regard to their political and social relations, and to introduce or abolish slavery, as fully as the people of a State.
The discussions of this Congress were of a more violent and threatening
character than any that had preceded it. But the proceedings of the
Kansas Legislature were fully recognised in the main, and afterwards
sustained by the present Administration.




19
In the mean time, Governor Shannon had been appointed to succeed
Governor Reeder. He failed, however, to restore harmony, and Governor
Geary superseded him, who likewise failed in his efforts to quell the agitation and appalling scenes of bloodshed.
The administration of Mr. Buchanan having succeeded that of Mr. Pierce,
and while, it may be said, anarchy and civil war still reigned supreme
in Kansas, Mr. Robert J. Walker was solicited by the President to accept
the Governorship of that Territory. It must be remembered, that previous to the formation of Mr. Buchanan's Cabinet, Mr. Walker was most
strenuously urged by our Southern Senators and Congressmen, for the
first gift in the power of the President-that of the office of Secretary of
State. The Governorship of Kansas at this time was considered by all
politicians as the " tomb of the Capulets" for any public man. Contrary to the violent opposition of his friends, however, Mr. Walker's
patriotic feelings and devotion to his country's welfare-his self-sacrificing
and benevolent sentiments-induced him to accept the office.
He was fully aware of the deep responsibilities that rested upon him,
and of the threatening dangers that surrounded him; but with a heart of
iron nerve equal to the task, he determined for the welfare of his country to make the effort, even should he be sacrificed in the hazardous
attempt. No man of less capacity could have suited the emergency, but
what man of equal position would have accepted the office?
Antecedent to the appointment of Governor Walker, the Legislature of
Kansas had passed an act in February, 1857, providing for the taking of
a Census, and for the election of delegates to a Convention to form
a State Constitution. An act was also passed, repealing the obnoxious
laws in relation to the test oath to be taken by voters and office-holders, &c.
It must be borne in mind that the powers conferred on the Territory
of Kansas were full and complete to regulate its own affairs in its own
way, to pass what laws it pleased, "subject only to the Constitution of
the United States." In the Nebraska-Kansas bill all right of Congress
to interfere in any manner was entirely surrendered, while, in the previous acts establishing Territories, it was required that their laws should
be " submitted to Congress, and, if disapproved, shall be null and of no
effect." No such provision was made in the Nebraska-Kansas bill.
Having accepted of the appointment under these remarkable circumstances, Governor Walker, previous to his departure for Kansas, proceeded to lay bare before the President and his Cabinet that line of policy
which he deemed it expedient to pursue. Before he left Washington city,




20
he prepared his inaugural address, submitted it to the President and his
Cabinet for their approval, and which was then, and has since been, fully
and, entirely concurred in.
Every information in regard to the true condition of affairs in Kansas
had been obtained at Washington, and the position and attitude of the
parties in the Territory were perfectly understood.
Hon. Frederick P. Stanton, who was appointed Secretary of State,
preceded Governor Walker to Kansas, and, as acting Governor of the
Territory, in his address to the people on the 17th of April, 1857, said:
"If the constitution be thus framed, and the question of difference thus
submitted to the decision of the people, I believe that Kansas will be'admitted by Congress, without delay, as one of the sovereign States of'the American Union, and the Territorial authorities will be immediately
withdrawn."
"Nothing is wanting but to secure the confidence of the people of all
parties in the sincerity of the declared intention of the Territorial Executive, to carry out these principles in good faith, in order to induce the
co-operation of all good men in the pending measures for adopting a State
constitution. The principles themselves cannot fail to be acceptable to
the sober judgment of the people; and I ardently hope, for the sake of
the paramount interests involved, that the necessary confidence will not
be withdrawn."
On the arrival of Governor Walker, then, he proceeded "to secure the
confidence of the people of all parties," to enable him to carry out the
principles " in good faith" which he had taken an oath to support and
maintain.
In the midst of his struggles and arduous endeavors to effect this object
before the people, and while occupying a position of the most dangerous
and hazardous character, as well as of the most delicate and difficult nature,
surrounded by extreme perplexing and embarrassing circumstances, with
a crushing responsibility upon him-before he had hardly been three weeks
in the Territory —and before the people at a distance could possibly understand his policy, he was violently denounced as a traitor to the South!
As a Southern State-rights Democrat, I cannot but deplore such untimely
haste in censuring so distinguished a public functionary, while I am fully
convinced the censure was not only unjust and undeserved, but unwise,
injudicious, and ungrateful.
Let us examine the charges brought against him, and test them by the
evidence which the facts on the record present.
The charge made by the resolution of the Georgia Convention is as follows:
"Resolved, That the address of Governor Walker in prescribing the




21' terms on which Congress should admit Kansas into the Union, and'in attempting to dictate the submission of their constitution for ratifiea-'tion, constitutes a presumptuous interference in matters over which he'has no legitimate control; and the same address in expressing the offi-'cial opinion that Kansas will become a free State, and in presenting
arguments to support that side of the question, is a gross departure'from the principles of non-intervention and of neutrality which were
established by the Kansas bill. And the convention has full confidence'that Mr. Buchanan will manifest that fidelity to the principles which' carried him into office by recalling Governor Walker."
The following is the preamble and resolution of the Mississippi convention:
" Whereas Governor Walker, in his inaugural address to the people of
I Kansas, declared it to be his'clear conviction that unless the conven-'tion,' called by law to form a constitution for that Territory,'submit'the constitution to the vote of all the actual settlers of Kansas'-at the'time of such submission-' it will be, and ought to be, rejected by Con-'gress;'
"And whereas the law of Congress authorizing the call of said con-'vention, and prescribing its duties, makes no provision for such sub.'mission to the then settlers of Kansas, nor prohibits Congress from'adopting the same without such submission;
"And whereas Governor Walker further suggests that Kansas, by'reason of its geographical position and climate, is unsuited to slave'labor, thereby gratuitously throwing the weight of his judgment and'official position against the ultimate success of the pro-slavery party;'therefore
"Resolved, That we regard the said recommendations, opinions, and'arguments of Governor Walker as an unjust and uncalled-for discrimi6nation against the rights and interests of the pro-slavery party in
Kansas and throughout the Union —a dictatorial intermeddling with the'performance of a high public duty already entrusted by law to a con.'vention selected from the people of Kansas, with which Governor'Walker had no right to interfere, and his conduct in this respect meets
the unqualified condemnation of this convention."
To simplify the charges we will put them in the following order, which
will encompass the whole:
Ist. In having prescribed the terms on which Congress should admit
Kansas into the Union, and in attempting to dictate the submission of
their constitution to the people for ratification.
2d. In expressing the opinion that Kansas would become a free State
by reason of its geographical position and climate, thereby throwing the
weight of his judgment and official position against the ultimate success
of the pro-slavery party.
It may here be proper to remark, that I am animated by none but the
most kindly feelings towards those of my fellow-citizens who have thought




22
proper to dissent from Governor Walker's course, and in this spirit I
shall endeavor to present a fair, unprejudiced, and impartial review of
the facts now brought under discussion. Before proceeding, however, it
may be as well here to correct an error of the Mississippi Convention,
contained in the second paragraph of the preamble, in relation to an act
of Congress.
As has already been shown, Congress failed to pass any law authorizing the call of a convention in Kansas, but the legislature of the Territory subsequently passed an act to that effect. I shall notice this act
in the course of my argument.
In the first place, before we can judge of the acts of Governor Walker,
it will be necessary to explain the condition of affairs in Kansas among
the people previous to his arrival, and which, persons residing in far distant States, who had not made themselves familiar with, are incompetent
to pass upon. Without any law authorizing the proceeding, the Abolitionists held a convention at Topeka, framed a constitution without submitting it to the people, and applied to the last Congress for admission
as a State. That constitution was rejected in the House by one vote as
being illegal. Afterwards the Territorial legislature passed an act for
the holding of a convention to form a State constitution, which was recognized by the present Administration. It was known to be the will and
desire of the impartial citizens of Kansas that the constitution should be
submitted to the people for their ratification. The Abolition or Black
Republican party, fearing that a packed delegation would compose the
convention and defeat this object, placed themselves in an attitude of defiance and determined not to vote for delegates, and thus prevent the
ratification of the constitution.
Governor Walker in his inaugural address, therefore, after urging the
necessity for all the people to vote for delegates to the convention, says:'"Although most anxious to secure to you the exercise of that great con4 stitutional right, and believing that the convention is the servant, and not'the master of the people, yet I have no power to dictate the proceedings'of that body."
To reasure them on this point, he says: "There is a remedy, also, if
such facts be demonstrated, in the refusal of Congress to admit a State
into the Union under a constitution imposed by a minority upon a majority byfraud or violence. Indeed, I cannot doubt that the convention, after having framed a constitution, will submit it for ratification or
rejection, by a majority of the then actual bona fide settlers of Kansas."
Again, he says: "I repeat, then, as my clear conviction, that unless




23
the convention submit the constitution to the vote of all the actual resident settlers of Kansas, and the election be fairly and justly conducted,
the constitution will be, and ought to be, rejected by Congress."
Is it to be supposed that Congress-would lend itself to fraud, and admit a constitution, unless the election was justly'and fairly conducted?
Will any just and honest man contend for a moment that if the election was not fairly and justly conducted, that the constitution should be
received by Congress? Can the expression, then, of a man's convictions
be thus tortured into "prescribing the terms" on which Congress should
admit Kansas?  How can the charge of dictatorial intermedling be sustained for a moment, when Governor,Walker expressly says: "I have
no power to dictate the proceedings of that body!"  The charge rebounds
with ten-fold force on these accusations, and the gentlemen who made
them must perceive that they themselves are guilty of "adictatorial
intermedling with the performance of a high public duty already entrusted
to another;" that they themselves have violated the very doctrine of
non-intervention by their own interference in matters which they did not
clearly understand, and in which they undertake to dictate to the people
of Kansas, instead of leaving them perfectly free to regulate their own
affairs.
It must be continually remembered that Governor Walker was acting,
and acting solely, under the instructions of the President of the United
States, with the approbation of his cabinet.
Governor Walker says: " With these views, well known to the Presidentand cabinet, and approved of bythem, I accepted the appointment
of the Governor of Kansas. My instructions from the President sustain the: regular legislature of the Territory in assembling a convention
to form a constitution; and [they express the opinion of the President,
that when such a constitution shall belsubmitted to the people of the Territory they must be protected in the exercise of their right of voting for
or against that instrument, and the fair expression of the popular will,
must not be interrupted by fraud or violence."
These instructions on the part of the President have been warped into
the construction that all the stragglers who happened to be in the Territory at the time of the submission of the constitution should be allowed
to vote on it; and Governor Walker is accused of an attempt to intimidate the convention into an adoption of this policy, and which, it is said,
he presumed to dictate to the people of Kansas.
Why, this is but the revival of an old Whig slander! It is the very
construction put upon Mr. Buchanan's " Berks county letter" by Mr.




24
Yancey, and which Mr. Buchanan refuted in his letter to Mr. T. Sandford, of 21st of August, 1848. In that letter Mr. Buchanan said:
" tn my letter to Berks county, of 25th August, I had said:'Under'the Missouri compromise slavery was forever prohibited north of the' parallel of 36 deg. 30 min., and south of this parallel the question was'left to be decided by the people.' What people?  Undoubtedly the peo-' pie of the Territory assembled in convention to form a State constitution'and ask admission into the Union, and not adventurers or first comers,'who might happen to arrive in the Territory, assembled in primary meet-'ing."
Such was the description of people to whom Mr. Buchanan referred,
not only in his Berks county letter, but in his instructions to Governor
Walker.
I will now show that it was the determination of the Democracy of
Kansas that the constitution should be submitted to the people for their
ratification as being the fairest means to test the sovereign will. Some
time before Governor Walker delivered his inaugural, the Democracy of
Douglas county, Kansas, held a convention at Lecompton, and passed
resolutions to support no man as a delegate to the constitutional convention unless he pledged himself to submit the constitution to every bona fide
actual settler of Kansas. They pledged themselves in their selections of
delegates to use their best efforts in all good faith and sincerity, to represent the interests of the whole Democracy of Kansas, without reference
to the section of the union from whence they came, or the views they might
entertain upon any local questions, which might properly be discussed or
decided upon in said convention.
These resolutions, in the name of the " National Democracy" of Douglas county, and " as members of the great Democratic party, knowing no
sectional leaning and acknowledging no party lines," were heartily endorsed and concurred in as the " best proof they could offer to the Democracy of the Union of their determination to secure and guarantee to
every citizen of Kansas, without reference to his party or views, the enjoyment of his constitutional rights, and an equal voice in the adoption of
those political institutions which he will be called upon to respect and obey."
Governor Walker but coincided with these sentiments, and, to allay
the fears that the constitution would not be submitted to the people,
expressed his opinion that it would be so submitted.  In order to
restore confidence and induce the people to vote for delegates, he
gave it as his clear conviction that unless the convention submitted the constitution " to the actual bona fide settlers of Kansas,"
and not to the sojourners who happen to be there at the time, and the




25
election be "fairly and justly conducted," it should be rejected by Congress. If to counsel peace and harmony be treason, then let no man
praise Washington. With what truth, then, can it be asserted that Governor Walker attempted to intimidate the convention into adopting a
policy which he presumed to dictate to the people of Kansas?
I cannot see what objection any portion of the people of Alabama,
Georgia, or Mississippi can have to the submission of the constitution to
the people of Kansas, if Kansas herself desires it. Is not an officious, unsolicited expression of opinion to the contrary, an intermeddling dictation, violating the principles of non-intervention?
Mr. Buchanan in his inaugural address says:
" It is the imperative and indispensable duty of the Government of the'United States to secure to every resident inhabitant the free and inde-'pendent expression of his opinion by his vote. This sacred right of each
individual must be preserved. That being accomplished, nothing can be'fairer than to leave the people of a territory free from all foreign inter-' ference, to decide their own destiny for themselves, subject only to the'Constitution of the United States."
These sentiments are the very essence of the President's instructions
to Governor Walker, and are embodied therein.
Governor Floyd, the present Secretary of War, in his speech before
the merchants of New York, at the Exchange, 2d October, 1856, said:
" It is alleged that the South wishes and intends to carry slavery by'force, if need be, into the territories, and particularly into Kansas.'Gentlemen, the bill of peace introduced into the Senate by Mr. Toombs,
[for the admission of Kansas, but which was defeated by the Black Re-'publicans in the House,] and the action of the South thereon, is the best'answer to that change. Under that bill, if the actual inhabitants of' Kansas had desired it, Kansas would have come into the Union a non-' slaveholding State as surely as the time arrived for her admission, if'what we are told be true, that a large majority of her people be for it.'It is the principle of free choice to form what constitution the people'think proper that the South insist upon."
Mr. Toombs said, as I have already quoted:
" You have no power to strike from the meanest Indian trapper, the' basest trader or camp-follower, their equal privileges-this sovereignty' of right which is the birthright of every American citizen."
In the Georgia Convention, when that State considered herself aggrieved, as now, by the admission of California, in 1850, whose constitution was submitted to the people for ratification, Mr. Toombs said:
" I have already attempted to vindicate the rights of a people, forming a'constitution for their admission into the Union, to admit or exclude sla-' very at their own pleasure, and to prove that Congress had no other' power over such constitution thus presented than to see that it is repub-' liean.'lican.*                * *      *         *                  *
" If we are wise we will defend, rather than resist, this birthright of
4




26' American freemen, so invaluable to us, so formidable to the enemies of' our prosperity, our peace, and our safety."
Mr. Stephens, as we have also seen, said-" the citizens of every dis-'tinct and separate community, or State, should have the right to govern'themselves in their domestic matters as they please, and that they should'be free from the intermeddling restrictions and arbitrary dictation on'such matters from any other power or government in which they have' no voice."
But to show the utter absurdity of charging Governor Walker with dictating to the people of Kansas that the constitution should be submitted
to the vote of anybody and everybody who should be at the time in the
Territory, the eighth section of the act of the Territorial Legislature,
passed three months before Governor Walker's arrival in Kansas, providing for the holding of a convention, declares:
" SEC. 8. An election shall be held for members of a convention to form' constitution for the State of Kansas, according to the apportionment to' be made as aforesaid on the third Monday in June next, to be held at the'various election precincts established in the Territory, in accordance with'the provisions of law on that subject; and at such election no person'shall be permitted to vote unless their name shall appear upon said corrected list."
The eleventh section prescribes the qualifications of voters:
"SEC. 11. Every bonafide inhabitant of the Territory of Kansas on'the third Monday of June, 1857, being a citizen of the United States,'over the age of twenty-one years, and who shall have resided three'months next before said election in the county in which he offers to vote,'and no other person whatever, shall be entitled to vote at said election,'and any person qualified as a voter may be a delegate to said conven-'tion, and no other."
Three months previous residence, then, is required before any person
can vote for delegates to the convention, and the convention has full
power, in forming the constitution, to prescribe the qualifications under
which the electoral franchise shall be exercised by the inhabitants or citizens of the Territory, in voting for the constitution. Governor Walker,
therefore, could exercise no power or authority, either to enlarge, modify,
or restrict the qualifications thus fixed by the act of the Territorial Legislature, conferring the right of the electoral franchise, and constituting
the requisites of a legal voter in the Territory.
This act, it is true, makes no provision for submitting the constitution
to the people, and for the reason that it was believed the Legislature had
no power to dictate to the convention, which would then represent the
sovereignty of the people. Mr. Isacks, the Attorney General of the Territory, in giving his opinion on this subject, said:
"If the assembly had power to command a reference of the constitution to the people, that body certainly had the right to make other re



27
quirements, and thus might have dictated provisions on any other sub-'ject. There can be no doubt of a reference of the constitution to the'people."
To confirm this opinion, the candidates for the convention as delegates
were required to pledge themselves to submit the constitution accordingly.
It is thus shown irrefragably that the charge of dictation on the part
of Governor Walker is wholly unfounded and cannot be sustained.
Let us now meet the second charge. It is contended that Governor
Walker by expressing his opinion that from the geographical position and
climate of Kansas it would become a free State, threw the weight of his
judgment and official position against the success of the pro-slavery party.
This charge is susceptible of division, because the latter indirectly implicates Governor Walker in siding with the Black Republican party.
I shall therefore take up the first part of this charge, which it is not
attempted to deny. Governor Walker did say in his inaugural: " There
is a law more powerful than the legislation of man-more potent than
passion or prejudice-that must ultimately determine the location of
slavery in this country; it is the isothermal line; it is the law of the thermometer, of latitude or altitude, regulating climate, labor, and productions;
and, as a consequence, profit and loss." Who is bold enough to dispute
this fact? Mr. Webster held the same opinion, in which Mr. Clay fully
coincided, that "slavery is excluded by a law superior to that which admits it elsewhere. The law of nature, of physical geography, the law of
the formation of the earth. That law settles forever, with a strength beyond all terms of human enactment, that slavery cannot exist there."
It is well known that President Buchanan himself, in his speech advoeating the admission of Texas into the Union, in 1845, asserted the same
doctrine. The late President Polk, in his message to Congress in December, 1848, urging the organization of territorial governments for New
Mexico and California, held the same opinion. He said:
"The question is believed to be rather abstract than practical, whether' slavery ever can or would exist in any portion of the acquired territory,'even if it were left to the adoption of the slaveholdirg States themselves.' From the nature of the climate and productions, in much the larger por-'tion of it, it is certain it could never exist; and in the remainder, the'probabilities are it would not. But however this may be, the question,'involving as it does a principle of equality of rights of the separate and'several States, as co-equal copartners in the confederacy, should not be'disregarded."
Ex-Presideut Pierce, in his special message to Congress, on the condition of affairs in Kansas, January 24, 1856, also said:
"But for it [the agitation of slavery] the character of the domestic in-' stitutions of the future new State would have been a matter of too little'interest to the inhabitants of the contiguous States, personally or col



28'lectively, to produce among them any political emotion.  Climate, soil,'production, hopes of rapid advancement, and the pursuit of happiness' on the part of the settlers themselves, with good wishes, but with no inter-'ference from without, would have quietly determined the question which'is at this time of such disturbing character."
I have already shown that Messrs. Cass, Douglas, Butler, Brown, Badger, and Hunter of the Senate, and Messrs. Brooks, Keitt, Millson, Stanton of Tennessee, of the House, and other distinguished members, also
expressed the opinion, in the debate on the Nebraska-Kansas bill, that
slavery would never be established in Kansas. Why were not these gentlemen taken to task at the time and denounced for the expression of such
opinions, and for throwing the weight of their official influence and positian against the pro-slavery party? Why wait till Governor Walker echoes
the President's sentiments, and those of Senators Brown, Butler, Hunter,
and others, and make him the sacrifice to be offered on the alter of sectional prejudice and passion? Is it not shameful thus wantonly to denounce a man whose life has ever been boldly and constantly devoted
to the interests of the South? You may as well, with the same reason,
find fault with Governor Walker for saying that the laws of the universe
fix the order of the stars in heaven, or that the laws of nature fix the
ruling of the seasons! For prejudice must at last give way to them, and
thinking minds be brought to acknowledge their power. But I have
already shown, and I think conclusively, that by the Badger proviso, we,
of the South, legislated Kansas free, even before the bill was signed that
made her a Territory. If there is a fault to be found, then, we of the
South are alone to blame, are alone responsible.
As to that part of the second charge insinuating that Governor Walker
threw the weight of his judgment and official position against the proslavery party, it cannot for a moment be sustained, either by any word or
act of his since his appointment. But, on the contrary, he says in his in.
augural:
" If, from the operation of these causes, [climate, &c.,] slavery should'not exist here, 1 trust it by no means follows that Kansas should become'.a State controlled by the treason and fanaticism of Abolition. She has,'in any event, certain constitutional duties to perform to her sister States,' and especially to her immediate neighbor-the slaveholding State of'Missouri. Our entire eastern front is upon our border; from Missouri' came a great number of her citizens; even the farms of the two States' are cut by the lines of State boundary-part in Kansas, part in Missouri;'her citizens meet us in daily intercouase, and that Kansas should become'hostile to Missouri, an asylum for her fugitive slaves, or a propagandist' of abolition treason, would be alike inexpedient and unjust, and fatal to'the continuance of the American Union. In any event, then, I trust'that the constitution of Kansas will contain such clauses as will forever'secure to the State of Missouri the faithful performance of all constitu-'tional guarantees, not only by federal but by State authority, and the su-.1/




29'premacy within our limits of the authority of the Supreme Court of the' United States on all constitutional questions be firmly established."
Again, he says:
"It is not merely shall slavery exist or disappear from Kansas, but' shall the great principle of self-government and State sovereignty be main-' tained or subverted. State sovereignty is mainly a practical principle in'so far as it is illustrated by the great sovereign right of the majority of'the people,* in forming a State government, to adopt their own social'institutions; and this principle is disregarded whenever such decision is'subverted by Congress, or overthrown by external intrusion, or by do-' mestic fraud or violence. All those who oppose this principle are the'enemies of State rights, of self-government, of the Constitution and the'Union. Do you love slavery so much, or hate it so intensely, that you'should endeavor to establish or exclude it by fraud or violence against'the will of the majority of the people? What is Kansas with or without'slavery, if she should destroy the rights and Union of the States?"
Is this the language of a man who could be charged with tampering
with his official position and throwing the weight of his judgment against
the Pro-slavery party?
But the entire refutation of this charge is made patent by subsequent
events.
The Territorial Democratic Convention which assembled at Lecompton on the 3d of July, and which was composed of a majority of proslavery men, passed resolutions endorsing Governor Walker's policy in
his efforts for the preservation of the peace, and expressive of their determination to support his inaugural, the Cincinnati platform, and the
submission of the constitution to the people. No cause of complaint, no
expression of dissatisfaction, is contained in these resolutions on the part
of the people, representing the Pro-slavery party in Kansas, against
Governor Walker, or sustaining for a moment any such suspicion as is
charged.
But Governor Walker is also charged with having declared in his Topeka speech that he would join the Free-soil party in opposition to the
Pro-slavery party, if the constitution was not submitted to the vote of
the whole people of Kansas. Governor Walker said no such thing. At
the Topeka meeting, when the ultra Republican party were pushing him
to the extreme, and propounding questions of the most aggravating character, in order to make him commit himself against the submission of
the constitution to the people, so that they might afterwards raise the
war-hoop against him, in urging them to register themselves as voters
under the law, he said:
" The great substantial point is this: will the whole people of Kansas,'next fall, by a fair election, impartially and fairly conducted by impar* By the late census returns in Kansas it is shown that the average estimate is twenty
free State men to one pro-slavery man.




30'tial judges, have an opportunity to decide for themselves what shall be'their form of government, and what shall be their social institutions? I'say they will, but I go a step further," [a voice,'Have you the power?']''If I have not the power to bring it about-if the convention will not'do it —I will join you in lawful opposition to their proceedings."
By which is clearly meant, that if the convention (whether it was
composed of a majority of Free-soilers or pro-slavery men) did not provide for the fair expression of the popular will of the people at the ballotbox, and the election be fairly and impartially conducted, then he would
join them, or any other party, in lawful opposition to their proceedings. This is the only construction that can be put upon his language.
His oath of office requires him to oppose all illegal and unfair acts of the
convention; but he has no power to do more, and he could not have said
less. Any language may be distorted and misconstrued to suit the views
of those who are desirous of finding fault with it. But no such deductions, as charged, can be drawn from any language either in his inaugural
or his Topeka speech without the most garbled and perverted interpretation.
Now, what is the next act in the drama? The Black Republicans of
Lawrence proceeded to establish a government for that city, in defiance
of the Territorial government and its authority. Governor Walker immediately issues his proclamation, (July 15, 1857,) in which he says:
"You were distinctly informed in my inaugural address of May last,'that the validity of the Territorial laws was acknowledged by the Gov-' rnment of the United States, and that they must and would be carried'into execution under my oath of office and the instructions of the Presii dent of the United States. The same information was repeated in va-'rious addresses made by me throughout the Territory. At the same' time, every assurance was given you that the rights of the people of this
Territory, under the law to establish their own State government, and' frame their own forms prescribed by the government of your country,'social institutions would be acknowledged and protected.  *  *  *
5 You have, however, chosen to disregard the laws of Congress and of
the territorial government created by it, and whilst professing to ac-'knowledge a State government rejected by Congress, and which can,'therefore, exist only by a successful rebellion, and exacting from all your'officers the perilous and sacrilegious oaths to support the so-called State'constitution; yet you have, even in defiance of the so-called State Leg-'islature, which refused to grant you a charter, proceeded to create a'local government of your own, based only on insurrection and revolu-'tion. The very oath which you require from all your officers to support'your so-called Topeka State constitution, is violated in the very act of'putting in operation a charter even rejected by them.
" A rebellion so iniquitous, and necessarily involving such awful con-'sequences, has never before disgraced any age or country."
Thus we see, at the very moment an attempt is made at rebellion




31
against the laws, Governor Walker, with his characteristic energy and
firmness, warns the people to desist; calls out the military, and goes in
person to the scene of insurrection, determined, at all hazards, to maintain and enforce obedience to the laws and the constitution.
Now, it must be remembered that Governor Walker went to Kansas as
a messenger of peace and mercy. He went as a judicious stateman and
reasoner on the part of the Government, under the instructions of the
President, to effect and restore law and order on the principles of the
Nebraska-Kansas bill and Cincinnati platform, and not as the advocate
of any violent party faction, obstinately to persevere in carrying out a
set form of measures. To a statesman so eminently and justly distinguished, the sound dictates of policy prompted a course for him to pursue
in accommodation to particular conjunctures, and not inflexibly to adhere
to any unalterable scheme, when public circumstances, and the sentiments
of our best and wisest national men have evidently changed from radicalism and ultraism to that of a conciliatory tone.
His policy, then, was to conciliate the people, without a departure from
the principles he was sent to enforce, without disobeying his instructions,
and without violating his oath of office. For he tells the people in his
inaugural: "As the Governor of the Territory of Kansas, I must support
the laws and the constitution; and I have no other alternative, under my
oath, but to see that all the constitutional laws are fully and fairly executed."
He did not go to Kansas to make it a, slave State, nor to make it a
free State. He went to secure and guarantee to every citizen of Kansas,
without reference to his party or views, the enjoyment of his constitutional rights, and to secure and maintain the SOVEREIGNTY OF THE WILL
OF THE PEOPLE, and thus to carry out the laws and Constitution of the
Union. When he found that the majority of the people were in favor
of making Kansas a free State, and that the pro-slavery men had abandoned their efforts to establish slavery there, howsoever ardent may have
been his desire for the formation of a pro-slavery constitution, he was bound
by his oath to leave the question to the bona fide inhabitants of the Territory to settle for themselves. Finding the question of slavery abandoned, with true devotion to his party and its principles, he proceeds to
exert all his energies' to establish the supremacy of the dominant faith
and creed of Democracy, and thus save the State from the despotic rule
of Abolitionists and Black Republicans. While endeavoring to accomplish this result, the violent vituperative assaults made upon him by the
inconsiderate and intemperate of the Southern press, produce powerful
suspicicions and serious distrust among a portion of the Democrats of
Kansas, tending to prevent their co-operation with the pro-slavery men,
and thus to defeat this object.




32
What course would you have had him to pursue? Opposed the Freesoilers; kept alive this frightful agitation, and brought about another internal strife to again threaten the Union with anarchy; disgraced the
record of the National Democratic party, and sullied it with the gore and
blood caused to be shed by the fanatical prejudices of faction? Wherein,
then, consists his treachery to the South?
When it is shown that Governor Walker cannot be attacked without
gross and equally violent reflection on the administration-it is attempted
to parry the charge of indiscriminate denunciation by asserting that,
"with one voice the Democracy of the South condemned Reeder and
Geary, and yet the Democracy of the South supported President Pierce's
administration."  And then the question is asked, "In like manner may
not Walker be reprimanded, without implying any attack on Mr. Buchanan?"   Most undoubtedly not. In the first place the cases are by no
means parallel. President Pierce never sustained Reeder and Geary,
and they were both recalled. If President Pierce had sustained Governor
Reeder, then the cases would be parallel, and then one party could not
be assaulted without a reflection on the other. It is to the appointment
of Governor Reeder that is mainly to be attributed this freesoil feud in
Kansas, and we had certainly in that case a more just cause of complaint
against General Pierce's administration, than can now be sustained against
President Buchanan's. Yet we of the South, on that occasion, said never
a word. In the present case, however, Governor Walker is sustained
by President Buchanan and all his cabinet. If Governor Walker has
proved false to the South, and betrayed it by carrying out President Buchanan's instructions, then Mr. Buchanan and his cabinet, to whom Governor Walker's inaugural and his policy had been previously submitted
and approved of by them, become joint conspirators, and they are all
equally liable, and must be tried jointly under the same indictment, and
visited with equal judgment. How, then, can you ask for a severance
under such circumstances, and convict the one while you acquit the others?
With what force, then, can every argument that human ingenuity can
suggest, be piled up to prove that the administration is not particeps
criminis, if Governor Walker is guilty of these charges? But to view the
question on all sides-if there was no conspiracy, and the administration
refused to recall Governor Walker, and expressed no dissent from his
acts, it thereby tacitly approved of them, and consequently the administration is accessory after the fact, and must be equally guilty. Again,
the administration, as principal, is clearly responsible for the acts of Governor Walker, who is merely its agent, and if those acts are not publicly
disavowed by it, they can only be viewed as the acts of the administration
itself. The President up to this moment has expressed his entire confi



dence in Governor Walker. He has said that Governor Walker has his
instructions for his only guide and policy, and until he disobeys or violates
them, the President can have no cause to disapprove of his course, much
less to recall him.
But can the refusal to comply with the suggestion of the Georgia Convention-which expressed "its fullest confidence that Mr. Buchanan will
manifest that fidelity to the principles which carried him into office, by recalling Govenor Walker "-sustain the charge of infidelity thus made in
the reverse of the proposition? If we, my Fellow Citizens, shall prove
our devotion and fidelity to those principles, by the same high standard
of excellence and good faith which the Executive has shown in every act
of his life, and thus far in his Administration, we may indeed have cause
to congratulate ourselves.
The wisdom of the policy of the Administration in its course in relation
to Kansas cannot be questioned. It has pursued the only conciliatory,
mediatory, and independent measures to produce the pacific results so
long hoped for by the nation, and now approximating the desired consummation. If, however, this end should not be obtained, the opposers
of this policy must be responsible for having frustrated it.
I now appeal to those who have thus denounced the Administration and
Governor Walker, and ask, What is to be gained by all this? When all was
given up by our own Southern men before President Buchanan's administration came into being, and before Governor Walker put his foot into
the Territory, are they thus to be denounced, and is Governor Walker
alone to be singled out for sacrifice from among all the eminent statesmen whom I have mentioned as participating in the same views?
He is honored in thus being selected for martyrdom. He who has done
so much for his country; he who has so faithfully served the South with
the best years of his life; he at whose first suggestion Texas was admitted into the Union under the clause in the Constitution to admit new
States, and who so nobly advocated her admission, thereby settling the
principle of the acquisition of slave territory; he who, from his first entrance into public life up to this hour, has consistently maintained the
same doctrines on the subject of slavery.
On the 2d March, 1836, Mr. Walker, in the Senate of the United
States, on the question of the abolition of slavery in the District of
Columbia, never having previously occupied a seat in any legislative
assembly, state or national, said:
"It is a proposition to violate the Constitution, and endanger the'Union. It is a proposition for rapine, plunder, and spoliation; it is a'proposition not merely to render the slaves of this District freemen,'but, in its inevitable results and consequences, to render the freemen of
5




34'this District slaves; to chain them to the car of a despotic central power,'whilst the wild spirit of fanaticism  lashes her fiery steeds over the'broken  columns and shattered fragments of the Constitution, and'driving onward in exulting triumph to the very Capitol of the nation,
" waves her black and blood-stained banner from the very dome, where'now float the glorious kindred emblems of our country's Union." *'
" It is a question not of abolition, or anti-abolitionism, but of union or'disunion. The vital current freezes around my heart when I contem-'plate the bare possibility of the dismemberment of this Union; but with' a view to prevent this dread catastrophe, it is time to address the people'of the North in the language of truth; to tell them that Abolitionists'are disunionists; that their success would be the success of disunion;'that if they love this Union, let them all now rise in the majesty of their'strength, and put down forever those fanatical incendiaries who are'threatening to place in jeopardy all that is dear to the people of the'South. We ask them to teach the Abolitionists that to persist in their'mad career unchecked is to endanger the Union, and that their object,'the abolition of slavery in the South, would not, and never can be,'accomplished; that they may fill every pulpit, every college, every'State of the North with abolition incendiaries, and yet they will not,' cannot accomplish their object.  *  *  No, our peculiar institutions' we will never yield even at the point of the bayonet, for, in a struggle'for their defence, we would be found invincible.
"This is not the language of a nullifier or secessionist. No, it is the' opinion of one who ever has opposed, and will continue to oppose, those' doctrines as fatal to the perpetuity of the American Union. It is the'language of a man whose love of this Union is as warm as the vital'blood that gushes from his heart; who values his own destiny here as'less than a bubble bursting on the ocean surge, compared with the dura-'tion of this Government, and life itself as utterly worthless were this'Union, dismembered."
Mr Walker, in his celebrated " Appeal for the Union," made in September, 1856, more than twenty years after his speech quoted in the
above extracts, sustains his consistency as follows:
" I indulge in no menaces against the Union. I make no predictions'on a subject of such fearful import. But this I can say, that the South' will not and ought not to submit to degradation; they will not be des-' poiled by the North of all rights in the common territory; they will not' surrender their constitutional guarantees; they love the Union, but it is
the union of the Constitution, the union of equals with equals, and not'of sovereign States of the North with subject States-say, rather, con-'quered provinces of the South. Rather than submit to this, they will'adopt the last alternative, separation, and will then exclaim:
"' Thy spirit, INDEPENDENCE, let me share,
Lord of the Lion Heart and Eagle eye,
Thy steps I'll follow with my bosom bare,
Nor heed the storm that lowers along the sky.'"
"Whether residing North or South, whether in public or in private life,'my best efforts have been devoted to maintain the Constitution and pre



35'serve the Union. A love of our constitutional Union beats in every'pulsation of my heart, and is entwined with every ligament of my
frame."
My sole object has been, in this effort, to allay all misunderstandings,
and to show that there is no cause of quarrel among us. To harmonize the
party at the South, and to restore peace, confidence, and good will. The
highest chivalry and honor, the noblest courage in man, is to acknowledge a
fault or error, when he finds that he has labored under a mistaken view or
opinion. Such feelings, I hope, will continue to animate the Democracy
of the South, whose attention I invoke to the following extract from the
farewell address of the venerable patriarch, JACKSON.
" The constitution cannot be maintained nor the Union preserved in' opposition to public feeling, by the mere exertion of the coercive powers'confided to the general government. The foundation must be laid in' the affections of the people, in the security it gives to life, liberty, char-' acter and property in every quarter of the country, and in the fraternal' attachment which the citizens of the several States bear to one another' as members of one political family, mutually contributing to promote'the happiness of each other. Hence the citizens of every State should'avoid everything calculated to wound the sensibilities or offend the just'pride of the people of other States; and they should frown upon any' proceedings within their own borders likely to disturb the tranquillity of' their political brethren in other portions of the Union."  *  *
" Rest assured, that THE MEN FOUND BUSY IN THIS WORK OF DISCORD'ARE NOT WORTHY OF YOUR CONFIDENCE, AND DESERVE YOUR STRONGEST
REPROBATION."
In conclusion, I would renew the solemn and ardent appeal of Mr.
Buchanan in his Inaugural Address, in reference to this territorial
question 
" Let every Union-loving man, therefore, exert his best influence to sup-'press this agitation, which, since the recent legislation of Congress, is' without any legitimate object."
A SOUTHERN STATE RIGHTS DEMOCRAT.
ADDENDA.
The following is the correspondence between the Connecticut Clergymen and President Buchanan, alluded to in the introduction of this address, and which speaksfor itself:To HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES BUCHANAN,
President of the United States.
THE UNDERSIGNED, citizens of the United States, and electors of the
State of Connecticut, respectfully offer to your Excellency this their MEMO,
RIAL:




The fundamental principle of the Constitution of the United States and
of our political institutions is, that the people shall make their own laws
and elect their own rulers.
We see with grief, if not with astonishment, that Gov. Walker, of Kansas, openly represents and proclaims that the President of the United
States is employing through him an army, one purpose of which is to
force the people of Kansas to obey laws not their own, nor of the United
States but laws which it is notorious, and established upon evidence, they
never made, and rulers they never elected.
We represent, therefore, that by the foregoing your excellency is openly held up and proclaimed, to the great derogation of our national character, as violating in its most essential particular the solemn oath which
the President has taken to support the Constitution of this Union.
We call the attention further to the fact that your excellency is, in like
manner, held up to this nation, to all mankind, and to all posterity, in the
attitude of " levying war against [a portion of] the United States," by
employing arms in Kansas to uphold a body of men, and a code of enactments purporting to be legislative, but which never had the election, nor
sanction, nor consent of the people of the Territory.
We earnestly represent to your excellency that we also have taken the
oath to obey the Constitution; and your excellency may be assured that
that we shall not refrain from the prayer that Almighty God will make
your administration an example of justice and beneficence, and with His
terrible majesty protect our people and our Constitution.
NATHANIEL W. TAYLOR,             DAVID SMITH,
THEODORE D. WOOLSEY,             J. HAWES,
HENRY DUTTON,                    JAMES F. BABC)CK,
CHARLES L. ENGLISH,              G. A. CALHOUN,
J. H. BROCHWAY,                  E. R. GILBERT,
ELI W. BLAKE,                    LEONARD BACON,
ELI IVES,                        H. C. KINGSLEY,
B. SILLIMAN, JR.                 B. SILLIMAN,
NOAH PORTER,                     EDWARD C. HERRICK,
THOMAS A. THATCHER,              CHARLES IVES.
J. A. DAVENPORT,                 WM. P. EUSTIS, JR.,
WORTHINGTON HOOKER,              ALEX. C. TWINING,
PHILOS BLAKE,                    JOSIAH W. GIBBS,
E. K. FOSTER,                    ALFRED WALKER,
C. S. LYMAN,                     JAMES BREWSTER,
JOHN A. BLAKE,                   STEPHEN G. HUBBARD,
WM. H. RUSSELL,                  HAWLEY OLMSTEAD,
A. N. SKINNER,                   SEAGROVE W. MAGILL,
HORACE BUSHNELL,                 AMOS TOWNSEND,
JOHN   BOYD,                     TIMOTHY DWIGHT,
CHARLES ROBINSON,                DAVID M. SMITH.
HENRY PECK,




PRESIDENT BUCHANAN'S REPLY.
WASHINGTON CITY, dugust 15, 1857.
GENTLEMEN: On my recent return to this city, after a fortnight's absence,
your memorial, without date, was placed in my hands, through the agency of Mr.
Horatio King, of the Post Office Department, to whom it had been intrusted. From the distinguished source whence it proceeds, as well as its peculiar
character,I have deemed it proper to depart from my general rule in such cases,
and to give it an answer.
You first assert that " the fundamental principle of theCoistitution of the
United States and of our political institutions is, that the people shall make their
own laws and elect their own rulers." You then expresss your grief and astonishment that I should have violated this principle, and, through Gov. Walker
have employed an army, " one purpose of which is to force the people of Kansas
to obey laws not their own, nor of the United States, but laws which it is notorious, and established upon evidence, they never made, and rulers they never elected."  And, as a corollary from the foregoing, you represent that I am " openly
held up and proclaimed, to the great derogation of our nationl character, as violating in its most essential particular the solemn oath which the President has taken to support the Constitution of this Union."
These are heavy charges proceeding from gentlemen of your high character,
and, if well founded, ought to consign my name to infamy. But in proportion to
their gravity, common justice, to say nothing of Christian charity, required that,
before making them, you should have clearly ascertained that they were well
founded. If not, they will rebound with withering condemnation upon their authors. Have you performed this preliminary duty towards the man who, however unworthy, is the Cheif Magistrate of your country? If so, either you or I
are laboring under a strange delusion. Should this prove to be your case, it will
present a memorable example of the truth that political prejudice is blind even to
the existence of the plainest and most palpable historical facts. To these facts
let us refer.
When I entered upon the duties of the Presidential office, on the 4th of March
last, what was the condition of Kansas? This Territory had been organized under the act of Congress of 30th May, 1854, and the government in all its branches was in full operation. A governor, secretary of the Territory, chief justice, two associate justices, a marshal, and district attorney had been appointed
by my predecessor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and were
all engaged in discharging their respective duties. A code of laws had been enacted by the Territorial legislature; and the judiciary were employed in expounding and carrying these laws into effect. It is quite true that a controversy had
previously arisen respecting the validity of the election of members of the Territorial legislature and of the laws passed by them: but at the time I entered
upon my official duties Congress had recognized this legislature in different forms
and by different enactments. The delegate elected to the House of Representatives, under a Territorial law, had just completed his term of service on the day
previous to my inauguration. In fact, I found the government of Kansas as well
established as that of any other Territory. Under these circumstances, what was
my duty? Was it not to sustain this government? to protect it from the violence of lawless men, who were determined either to rule or ruin 3 to prevent it
from being overturned by force?-in the language of the Constitution, to "take
care that the laws be faithfully executed?" It was for this purpose, and this
alone, that I ordered a military force to Kansas, to act as a posse comitatus in aiding the civil magistrate to carry the laws into execution.




38
The condition of the Territory at the time, which I need not portray, re ndered
this precaution absolutely necessary, in this state of affairs, would I not have
been justly condemned had I left the marshal and other officers of a like character impotent to execute the process and judgments of courts of justice established
by Congress, or by the Territorial Legislature under its express authority, and
thus have suffered the Government itself to become an object of contempt in the
eyes of the people? And yet this is what you designate as forcing " the people
of Kansas to obey laws not their own, nor of the United States;" and for doing
which you have denounced me as having violated my solemn oath. I ask, what
else could I have done, or ought I to have done? Would you have desired that
I should abandon the Territorial Government, sanctioned as it had been by Congress, to illegal violence, and thus renew the scenes of civil war and bloodshed
which every patriot in the country had deplored? This would, indeed, have been
to violate my oath of office, and to fix a damning blot on the character of my administration.
I most cheerfully admit that the necessity for sending a military force to Kansas to aid in the execution of the civil law reflects no credit upon the character
of our country. But let the blame fall upon the heads of the guilty. Whence
did this necessity arise? A portion of the people of Kansas, unwilling to trust
to the ballot box-the certain American remedy for the redress of all grievancesundertook to create an independent government for themselves. Had this attempt proved successful, it would, of course, have subverted the existing Government, prescribed and recognized by Congress, and substituted a revolutionary
government in its stead. This was a usurpation of the same character as it
would be for a portion of the people of Connecticut to undertake to establish a
separate government within its chartered limits, for the purpose of redressing
any grievance, real or imaginary, of which they might have complained against the
legitimate State Government. Such a principal, if carried into execution, would
destroy all lawful authority, and produce universal anarchy.
I ought to specify more particularly a condition of affairs, which I have embraced only in general terms, requiring the presence of a military force in Kansas. The Congress of the United States had most wisely declared it to be "( the
true intent and meaning of this act (the act organizing the Territory) not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to
leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."
As a natural consequence, Congress has also prescribed by the same act, that
when the Territory of Kanses shall be admitted as a State, it "c shall be received
into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at
the time of their admission."
Slavery existed at that period, and still exists in Kansas, under the Constitution of the United States.  This point has at last been finally decided by the
highest tribunal known to our laws. How it could ever have been seriously
doubted is a mystery. If a confederation of sovereign States acquire a new territory at the expense of their common blood and treasure, surely one set of the
partners can have no right to exclude the other from its enjoyment, by prohibiting them from taking into it whatsoever is recognized to be property by the common Constitution. But when the people-the bona fide residents of such territory-proceed to frame a State constitution, then it is their right to decide the
important question for themselves whether they will continue, modify, or abolish
slavery. To them, and to them alone, does this question belong, free from all
foreign interference.
In the opinion of the Territorial Legislature of Kansas, the time had arrived
for entering the Union, and they accordingly passed a law to elect delegates for
the purpose of framing a State constitution. This law was fair and just in its




39
provisions. It conferred the right of suffrage on " every bonafide inhabitant of
the Territory;" and, for the purpose of preventing fraud, and the intrusion of
citizens of near or distant States, most properly confined this right to those who
had resided therein three months previous to the election. Here a fair opportunity was presented for all the qualified resident citizens of the Territory, to whatever organization they might have previously belonged, to participate in the
election, and to express their opinions at the ballot-box on the question of slavery.
But numbers of lawless men still continued to resist the regular Territorial Gov-:rnment. They refused either to be registered or to vote; and the members of
the convention were elected, legally and properly, without their intervention.
The convention will soon assemble to perform the solemn duty of framing a constitution for themselves and their posterity; and in the state of incipient rebellion
which still exists in Kansas, it is my imperative duty to employ the troops of the
United States, should this become necessary, in defending the convention against
violence whilst framing the constitution, and in protecting the " bonafide inhabitants " qualified to vote under the provisions of this instrument in the free exercise of the right of suffrage when it shall be submitted to them for their approbation or rejection.
I have entire confidence in Govenor Walker that the troops will not be employed except to resist actual aggression or in the execution of the laws; and this
not until the power of the civil magistrate shall prove unavailing. Following the
wise example of Mr. Madison towards the Hartford Convention, illegal and dangerous combinations, such as that of the Topeka Convention, will not be disturbed
unless they shall attempt to perform some act which will bring them into actual
collision with the Constitution and the laws. In that event, they shall be resisted and put down by the whole power of the Government. In performing this
duty, I shall have the approbation of my own conscience, and, as I humbly trust,
of my God.
I thank you for the assurance that you will " not refrain from the prayer that
Almighty God will make my administration an example of justice and beneficence."  You can greatly assist me in arriving at this blessed consummation by
exerting your influence in allaying the existing sectional excitement on the subject of slavery, which has been productive of much evil and no good, and which,
if it could succeed in attaining its object, would ruin the slave as well as his master. This would be a work of genuine philanthropy. Every day of my life I
feel how inadequate I am to perform the duties of my high station, without the
continued support of Divine Providence; yet, placing my trust in Him, and in
Him alone, I entertain a good hope that he will enable me to do equal justice to
all portions of the Union, and thus render me an humble instrument in restoring
peace and harmony among the people of the several States.
Yours, very respectfully,
JAMES BUCHANAN.
Rev. NATHANIEL W. TAYLOR, D. D.
Rev. THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, D D., LL. D.
Hon. HENRY DUTTON.
Rev. DAVID SMITH, DD.
Rev. J. HAWES, D. D., and others.