F e>g3 
 
^ 
 
 ^ 
 
KANSAS AFFAIRS. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OP / 
 
 HON. GEORGE E.- PUGH, OF OHIO, 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JU LY 2 , 1856. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the report in favor 
 of printing twenty thousand extra copies of the bill to 
 enable the people of the Territory of Kansas to form a 
 constitution — 
 
 Mr. PUGH said: 
 
 Mr. President: I amnot disposed to renew this 
 discussion at any other time; and as it is neces- 
 sary that I should correct one misrepresentation 
 of my colleague, personal to myself, I will say a 
 few words, also, in reference to the topics which 
 have been debated. 
 
 I had objections, Mr. President, to the bill 
 nrhich passed the Senate last week, but I did not 
 think it worth while, after a continuous session 
 of twenty hours, when all around me were so 
 much exhausted, to explain those objections at 
 any length. I doubted whether Kansas had a suf- 
 ficient population to warrant her admission as a 
 State; but I never said, (as my colleague asserts,) 
 that the lack of ninety thousand inhabitants was 
 an insuperable objection. I did say the lack of 
 thirtythousand was an insuperable objection; and 
 I said, also, from the votes cast in October, 1855, 
 the Territory could not have contained that num- 
 ber, by five or six thousand, at the time of the 
 session of the Topeka convention. I confess, 
 sir, I have no distinct evidence, to this hour, that 
 Kemsas contains thirty thousand inhabitants; and 
 it was upon this point, chiefly, I had to overcome 
 doubts. 
 
 Mr. WADE. I stated only from recollection 
 what my colleague said. It occurred to me that 
 he did say there should be ninety-three thousand, 
 the amount required in the original bill; but it 
 may be as he has stated. I did not profess to be 
 accurate on the point. I quoted from memory. 
 
 Mr. PUi. ' I should not have rcf rred to the 
 subject at all, but that, when I rose Lo correct my 
 colleague's statement— supposing he had misap- 
 prehended me— he refused to allow the correc- 
 tion, and insisted upon the accuracy of his own 
 words. I knew what my views were at the time, 
 and thought I remembered my language. Since 
 the occurrence, however, I have examined the 
 report of my speech, and it was just as I said. 
 My insuperable objection was to the lack of 
 thirty thousand inhabitants, and because I believe 
 the Constitution requires that number in the case 
 of every new State, when it declares that the ratio 
 for Representatives shall never be less than thirty 
 thousand. I thought the admission of new States, 
 with ten or twenty thousand inhabitants, would 
 be an infringement of the Federal compact, and, 
 considering the number of our Territories at 
 present, of very dangerous consequence. 
 
 The Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Collamer,] 
 when he submitted his views as a member of the 
 Committee on Ten-itories, only claimed twenty- 
 five thousand inhabitants for Kansas, and that 
 claim was based upon the votes given in October 
 last. I repeat, sir, the evidence is not conclusixe 
 to my mind, that the population of Kansas has 
 increased, even as yet, to thirty thousand. But 
 the Senator from New York [Mr. Seward] de- 
 clares that it is forty thousand; and one of the 
 Senators from Massachusetts [Mr. Somner] has 
 risen tonearly or quite sixty thousand. It seemed 
 to be conceded on all sides, and affirmed by the 
 vote of the other House, that there had been a 
 large increase of population in Kansas during the 
 past eight months; and so, for the sake of peace, 
 
"T^./ 
 
 assenting to what appeared to be the opinion 
 of those Senators with whom I generally vote — 
 assenting to what I supposed were the wishes of 
 the Opposition — assenting to the course adopted 
 by the House of Representatives — I consented 
 to act upon the supposition that Kansas had 
 now attained the limit of thirty thousand inhabi- 
 tants. The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Geter] 
 appeared to have some doubt in this regard, and 
 expressed himself to that effect; but he sacrificed 
 all doubts, nobly, for the ^ke of conciliation and 
 peace. 
 
 TheSenatorfromKcntucky [Mr. Crittenden] 
 also expressed a doubt. What those two Sen- 
 ators said, just before the final vote, so fully ex- 
 plained my own views, that I did not wish to add 
 a single word. So much for the inconsistency 
 of which my colleague accused me. I said also, 
 in my speech, that I would not be disposed to 
 admit a State with less population, by two 
 thirds, than the existing ratio of representation. 
 I would only agree to that in extraordinary cir- 
 cumstances. I still adhere to the declaration. 
 But, sir, these are extraordinary circumstances, 
 and they have become so, in a great degree, since 
 my speech was delivered. If what my colleague 
 has said be true — if there be any foundation at 
 all for the constant assertions of those with whom 
 he acts — this is a case in which I am bound to 
 surrender every consideration short of constitu- 
 tional duty, in order to establish peace in the 
 Territory, and — if it be not, alas! too late — re- 
 store peace to our almost distracted Union. 
 
 Mr. President, I care little whether the motion 
 under debate be or be not adopted. I do not 
 imagine that twenty thousand copies of the " pa- 
 cification" bill (as it has been rightly named) will 
 answer the public demand, or even suffice to in- 
 form the country of its provisions. I have no 
 such idea. Nor do I believe that one hundred 
 thousand copies would accomplish the purpose. 
 To me, therefore, it is immaterial whether the 
 motion be adopted or rejected. Already, in the 
 newspapers of the Opposition, a studious attempt 
 has been made to deceive the people as to its 
 character. It is called "the Kansas slave State 
 bill," not only in editorial paragraphs, but in 
 letters and telegraphic dispatches. And even here, 
 to our very faces, several Senators have asserted 
 — not that the bill was calculated to make Kansas 
 a slave State — not that such would be its tendency 
 or effect — but that the purpose, the intention, the 
 deliberate design of those who voted for it was 
 to make Kansas a slave State. The Senator from 
 Maine [Mr. Fessenden] has asserted this, and 
 asaorted also that it is a parliamentary charge. 
 
 I say that it is not. It is unparliamentary, im- 
 proper, and abusive; and if the Senator expects 
 to employ such language in any debate with me, 
 he might as well prepare for a retort. I main- 
 tain, sir, that the rules of the Senate do not tol- 
 erate an assertion like that. On reflection, to be 
 sure, he has excepted the Senator from Kentucky 
 [Mr. Crittenden] out of this unprecedented de- 
 nunciation; but he persists in the charge that all 
 the rest of us, from the North as well as from the 
 South, although upon the sanction of our oaths, 
 before God and the country, we have professed 
 that our sole purpose, intention, and design, wa3 
 to adopt a fair measure — one which should truly 
 ascertain the will of the actual inhabitants of 
 Kansas, are perpetrating a deliberate falsehood. 
 Who is this Senator, pray, that he should thus 
 pronounce other Senators to be hypocrites and 
 knaves? This, I suppose, is the " free speech" 
 of which we have heard so much, and which no 
 man must presume to question in or out of the 
 Senate Chamber. I repeat, sir, such language 
 is neither parliamentary nor excusable. 
 
 I agree that any Senator has a right to declare 
 that the provisions of the bill are s».ch, or the 
 circumstances under which it is propo«ed are 
 such, that the legitimate consequence will be to 
 make Kansas a slave State. That is a proposi- 
 tion I can discuss with him; and to that even the 
 Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] con- 
 fined himself in his last address. But when a 
 Senator exceeds that limit, and undertakes to 
 impute an intention to his fellow Senators, con- 
 trary to what they have professed, he violates all 
 the decorum of debate, and the privileges of those 
 who are compelled to hear him. And, sir, when- 
 ever it is attempted, offensively, towards me, I 
 shall claim an equal degree of indulgence — and 
 the right to say (what I now say of the assertion 
 of the Senator from Maine) that, so far as lam 
 concerned, it is entirely without foundation or 
 excuse. 
 
 Well, Mr. President, we attempted to settle 
 the Kansas question fairly, so far as we could 
 settle it. I have stated the points upon which I 
 yielded. I do not agree with the Senator from 
 New York, that the day for compromise has 
 passed. I agree with the Senator from Kentucky 
 that, saving the Constitution, I will compromise 
 to the last syllable of recorded time, if I can 
 thereby promote the peace of the Union, and the 
 welfare of the individual States. I have contrib- 
 uted my share; other Senators have made their 
 contributions. The bill was not introduced at 
 my suggestion, nor after any consultation with 
 mc. I found it here upon my return from the 
 
West, and examined it as well as I eould. Tlie 
 result was a determination to give it my support. 
 1 sympathized also in the invitation extended 
 by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky to 
 those who claim to be the especial friends of the 
 free-State party'in Kansas — an invitation to pro- 
 pose any amendment which would render the bill 
 more acceptable to them, and yet preserve its 
 principles. I had read, in the Globe newspaper, 
 that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. 
 Hale] declared it a bill almost unexceptionable — 
 such, perhaps, was his very language — and I 
 rejoiced in the hope that, from all this confusion 
 and tumult, this bitterness in Congress and out 
 of Congress, in Kansas and everywhere else, a 
 path of deliverance had been discovered, and that 
 we could all agree, at last, upon terms of fair and 
 honorable adjustment. That Senator has not 
 assigned an excuse satisfactory, in my judgment, 
 for since voting against the bill. 
 
 If any reason, worthy to be called such, had 
 been alleged for his motion to strike out the 4th 
 of July, 1856, and insert a later period, I should 
 have voted in favor of it. But, sir, what was the 
 pretext alleged ? Alerely, that he had no confi- 
 dence in the President of the United States. Did 
 the Senator expect those of us who voted for 
 Franklin Pierce to unite in a condemnation so 
 broad and unqualified ? The very pretext was 
 an insult to us. 
 
 This question, then, is not to be settled; that 
 is the notice which we have received. Its settle- 
 nient is to be postponed until after the presiden- 
 tial election. And wherefore .' 
 
 At the commencement of the session, you will 
 recollect, the Senator from New York jTVIr. 
 Seward] proclaimed that Kansas stood at our 
 door linocking for admission; and he demanded 
 whether the Senate would drive her away from 
 this place of refuge — would coldly drive her back 
 to anarchy and bloodshed .' That inquiry was 
 propounded time and again. Kansas, it was said, 
 is ready to rush into your arms; will you receive 
 her ? For if you receive her — it was also said — 
 everything will be well. Now, Mr. President, 
 we have agreed to receive her; we have opened 
 the doors of the Senate Chamber; we have 
 invited her to present us a constitution adopted 
 by her people, and take her place in the Union 
 as a State. But, sir, how quickly has the tunc 
 changed ? These gentlemen now tell us that 
 Kansas docs not wish to be admitted as a State 
 for twelve or eighteen months. 
 
 What other amendments were proposed by 
 Senators of the Opposition.' Two only of mate- 
 rial consequence; and the first of these was a 
 
 recognition of the Topeka constitution. Well, 
 sir, I .say of that constitution, as I said before, it 
 never was adopted by the people of Kansas, ac- 
 cording to its own requirements. I do not need 
 any other answer; this alone is conclusive. The 
 constitution required, in terms, that it should be 
 submitted to a vote of the qualified electors, and 
 be ratified by them. It never was so ratified; it 
 did not receive the votes of the free-State parti- 
 sans; it received no votes of any consequence. 
 
 It is not, therefore, the voice of the people; it is 
 not even the voice of the free-State partisans; it 
 is only the voice of a handful of men (wc know- 
 not whom) assembled in various precincts — for 
 in many precincts no votes at all were received — 
 assembled under the sanction of no law, and 
 with no tests, of any sort, whereby to ascertain 
 the qualification of those who voted. We are 
 asked to impose this constitution, thus promul- 
 gated at a time when the population did not ex- 
 ceed twenty-five thousand, on a people which 
 now numbers (if the Senator from Massachusetts 
 is to be beheved) some sixty thousand. Sir, I am 
 ready to argue the cause on that issue. Senators 
 need not imagine there is any sentiment of fear 
 in my bosom as to the verdict of the American 
 people when a proposition so monstrous shall 
 have been fairly exposed. 
 
 What else was oflered in the way of amend- 
 ment? Why, sir, at the last hour, with a vain 
 hope — vain, indeed, it proved — that some further 
 concession might satisfy Senators upon the other 
 side, I invited them to suggest additional safe- 
 guards. It had been alleged, in the course of the 
 discussion, that the 4th day of July, 1856, was 
 not a fair date by which to ascertain the residence 
 of voters, because a large number of the free-State 
 partisans had been driven out of the Territory. 
 This, certainly, is an exaggeration. How many 
 actual settlers have been driven out? I do not 
 speak of the number of men lately sent thither, who 
 may have been prevented from entering the Terri- 
 tory. I ask how many actual settlers have been 
 driven out? A thousand? Where arc they ? Are 
 they in your State ? Are they in Illinois? I know 
 they are not in Ohio. Where, then, upon the 
 face of the earth, will you find this vast concourso 
 of sufferers ? Sir, this exaggeration is too bold — 
 too apparent. Those who have been driven out, 
 if any, are few in number. But, to avoid even 
 this objection, the ^nator from Illinois [Mr. 
 Douglas] added a clause to the bill, under which 
 all who have left the Territory through fear, or 
 in consequence of any ill usage, are allowed to 
 return, to register their names, and to vote. The 
 commissioners will be in session , for this pur- 
 
pose, three or four months. What more could 
 be asked ? 
 
 But, it is said, you do not protect these per- 
 sons in returning, and after they shall have re- 
 turned. What protection do they desire ? One 
 Senator alleges that a line of sentinels has been 
 stationed upon the western border of Missouri, to 
 prevent free-State men from entering Kansas 
 through that State. Well, sir, suppose this to 
 be true — I do not know whether it is true or 
 fslse; I am rather inclined to believe it is false, 
 na the statement comes from a quarter whence 
 80 many falsehoods have emanated; — but sup- 
 pose, 1 say, that it were true: what power has 
 Congress over the State of Missouri ? What 
 can we do with any such sentinels? What re- 
 lief can wc afford to the citizens of San Francisco, 
 in California, against the irresponsible, despotic, 
 armed oligarchy which now enslaves them, and 
 threatens to subvert even their State government? f 
 The question is not what would be the best I 
 remedy for all the grievances alleged, but what ! 
 is the best remedy within our power? There are 
 other routes into the Territory; they are not the 
 most eligible ones, but they are complete, and are 
 the only routes over which Congress can exer- 
 cise the least control. What protection, then, is 
 requisite ? Let these men return by the way of 
 Iowa and Nebraska. This moment, I under- 
 stand, Colonel Lane has an encampment in the 
 State of Iowa. 
 
 What is the nature of the protection which 
 Senators demand. Must we send military offi- 
 cers to search for every persecuted free-State 
 man, and assign him a body-guard during the 
 next four months? Is there no limit, Mr. Pres- 
 ident, to human absurdity? 
 
 We have invited these men to return, and 
 register their names as qualified voters. They 
 pretend to have been oppressed by certain laws, 
 and we have stricken those laws out of existence. 
 It is alleged that they have been prevented, by 
 Tiolence, from approaching the polls: we station 
 the troops of the United States by the side of each 
 ballot-box to protect all voters from abuse or 
 molestation. And we have intrusted this elec- 
 tion to five commissioners, who shall be nom- 
 inated by the President and confirmed by the 
 Senate — commissioners who, as the Senator from 
 Michigan [Mr. Cass] was authorized to state, 
 will represent both parties^ We have furnished, 
 therefore, every possible safeguard — more than 
 our opponents ever suggested, or even imagined. 
 Will it be, then, a fair election ? What more can 
 be asked ? What more can we provide ? I call 
 upon the Senate and the country to take notice 
 
 of the fact, that Senators upon the other side 
 have been invited again and again to propose 
 any additional safeguards — and have been able to 
 propose none. At the last hour, almost, I renewed 
 the invitation. I asked them to suggest a pro- 
 vision (if they could) for the more effectual pro- 
 tection of the inhabitants, and especially those 
 who have been driven out. 
 
 Such, Mr. President, was my request; and how 
 was it answered? I realized the wisdom of the 
 Scriptures. I asked for bread, and received a 
 stone — for a fish, and received only a serpent. 
 The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Trumbull] rose 
 to name his measure of pacification. We had 
 been told that Kansas was in a miserable condi- 
 tion — that men were slain, women were outraged, 
 and property was destroyed. What remedy did 
 the Senator propose for all these terrible evils r 
 He proposed that even the faint vestiges of law 
 in the Territory should be expunged, and that 
 fair domain given over to legitimized anarchy and 
 lawlessness. This, then, is the proposition of 
 Senators who have talkfd so much about peace 
 and justice — the utter abrogation of every law, 
 and the nullification of the power of every magis- 
 trate. All government there is to be at an end: 
 and the thousands of people, men, women, and 
 children, who have gone thither in the faith of 
 our protection, are suddenly to be outlawed by 
 the fiat of Congress, and exposed to the wanton 
 outrages of any individual. Let me tell the Sen- 
 ator from Illinois, and all his supporters, that I 
 am prepared for an appeal to the country upon 
 that issue also. Indeed, sir, this is the whole 
 question to be decided; all else is of no conse- 
 quence. If it were ever so true that we had 
 abandoned some abstract doctrine, heretofore pro- 
 fessed, they could derive no justification from 
 the fact. They ought rather to congratulate us 
 upon a conversion so marvelous, and not assail 
 us with new phrases of abuse and vituperation. 
 It would be in better taste, even, to lift up their 
 sanctimonious eyes, like the Pharisee of old, and 
 thank God they are better than us publicans and 
 sinners, who stand afar off, and humbly smite 
 our breasts with remorse. 
 
 Sir, I will meet the question, whether we have 
 or have not departed from the acknowledged 
 principles of the Democratic party, but I will 
 not debate it with the Senator. It is a ques- 
 tion with which he has no concern. How 
 does it become his affair whether I regard the 
 doctrines of my party or not ? If I do not regard 
 them, here or elsewhere, I shall be called to ac- 
 count by the constituted authorities of the party, 
 and tried and convicted in due form; but, with all 
 
respect, I do not consider the Senator one of those 
 nuthorities. I do not care what he may have 
 be&n in times past. I find by the newspapers that 
 heattendeda " Republican" convention not long 
 since, and approved the nomination of Messrs. 
 Fremont and Dayton. 
 
 In my judgment, however, the pacification bill 
 violates no doctrine projiosod or advocated by 
 tlie Democratic party heretofore. I believe that 
 I understand the doctrine of " popular sover- 
 eignty" quite well; and, so far as I do understand 
 it, there is nothing to restrain or abridge its full 
 operation in the bill which has received the sanc- 
 tion of the Senate. 
 
 The question jircscnted upon this subject is, 
 whether the actual inhabitants of a Territory shall 
 decide the character of their local institutions, or 
 submit to the arbitrary decision of Congress in 
 that regard? Popular sovereignty and congres- 
 sional domination stand opposed to each other. 
 The Senator maintains that it is the right of Con- 
 gress to govern the Territories in all respects, 
 without reference to the will of their inhabitants. 
 I deny both the riglifulness and expediency of 
 such legislation. I have held this faith ever since 
 I had a vote, and expect to continue in the faith. 
 
 Popular sovereignty is not a new idea; nor 
 was its application to the case of our Territories 
 first suggested by the venerable Senator from 
 Michigan, [Mr. Cass,] although I acknowledge 
 that he first expressed it in a definite and consist- 
 ent form. It was suggested by Jefferson at the 
 time of the Missouri compromise; and that will 
 a^ipear from several of his letters, those especially 
 which he addressed to President Monroe. Jeffer- 
 son denied the power of Congress in this regard; 
 and he prophesied of the Missouri compromise 
 exactly what has since come to pass. 
 
 The same views were entertained by Madison, 
 Monroe, Jackson, and Calhoun; but it was re- 
 served for the venerable Senator from Michigan 
 to proclaim the doctrine of popular sovereignty 
 in that definite form in which it was accepted by 
 the Democratic party eight years ago. He was 
 nominated for the Pixsidency upon that platform. 
 
 General Taylor came into office without having 
 awnounced any opinions on this subject. He 
 was represented by his friends at the North as 
 a staunch " Wilmot proviso" man, and at the 
 South as exactly the opposite. All parties, there- 
 fore, felt great anxiety to learn what course he 
 would pursue. But whatever his own opinions, 
 or the professions of his friends. General Taylor 
 found himself compelled to adopt the doctrine 
 which had been professed by General Cass — the 
 doctrine of congressional non-intervention and 
 
 popular sovereignty — and during the brief period 
 of his administration he endeavored to maintain 
 that doctrine, so far as he could by executive 
 influence, in reference to California, New Mex- 
 ico, and Utah. 
 
 The administration of Mr. Fillmore came next, 
 and with it the great adjustment of 1850. What 
 was the principle of that adjustment? It was, 
 that all our Territories, when they came to be 
 admitted as States, should be received with sla- 
 very, or without slavery, as the people might de- 
 cide, and not as Congress might decide. What 
 is now the doctrine of our opponents? I do not 
 presume to declare what it may be in Illinois, 
 but I know what it is in Ohio. I need not go 
 beyond the resolutions presented here, at this 
 session, from the Republican majority of the 
 Legislature. 1 need not give my recollection of 
 any man's speeches, nor appeal to any obsolete 
 platform. The resolutions are here, and have 
 been printed by order of the Senate. They de- 
 clare that no slaveholding State shall be received 
 into the Union, henceforth, in any circumstances, 
 or upon any pretext. If that does not contra- 
 dict, directly, the compromise of 1850, I confess 
 myself unable to understand the force of the 
 English language. 
 
 The issue, tiierefore, is whether Congress or 
 the people shall decide upon the institutions of a 
 now State. There are some Senators belonging 
 to the Democratic party who ?toy> at that point. 
 I believe the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Hlkja- 
 min] does; and, at all events, the Senator from 
 Mississippi [Mr. Erowm] and the Senator from 
 Georgia [Mr. Toombs] do. I do not. They 
 hold that the Constitution of the United St;ites 
 restrains the people of the Territories from ex- 
 cluding slavery, by law, during the period of the 
 territorial government. I do not so understand 
 the Constitution. I agree with them, however, 
 in this: If the Constitution has restrained the peo- 
 ple, as alleged, let them be restrained! What- 
 ever the Constitution provides in this particular, 
 by that I will stand. I desire no better faw than 
 the Constitution; and God knows that I advocate 
 no " higher law" for the government of our po- 
 litical relations. 
 
 This question being a mere question of con- 
 struction, a question as to the powers conferred 
 in the Federal Constituyon, we have agn.ed that 
 it shall be referred to the judicial authorities for 
 determination; and, both as a Senator and a citi- 
 zen, I mean to be bound by whatever the judicial 
 authorities decide in that respect. At present, 
 however, and until the decision, I will entertain, 
 and, if necessary, defend my own opinion. Find- 
 
6 
 
 ing no such restraint in the Constitution as Sen- 
 ators have alleged, I believe that, under the terms 
 of the Kansas-Nebraska act, each Territorial 
 Legislature may prohibit or admit slavery at will 
 — not as a permanent decision, to be sure, but 
 during the territorial period, or until otherwise 
 lawfully provided. 
 
 This question, however, is not involved in the 
 pacification bill. We are not debating what shall 
 be the condition of affairs in Kansas during ai 
 territorial form of government; and hence the i 
 utter inappropriateness of two amendments pro-| 
 po.scd by the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Trum- 
 bull,] against which I voted. We are now 
 looking to tlie admission of Kansas as a State 
 into the Union; and upon that issue the Demo- 
 '•ralic Senators, North and South, East and 
 Wvst, all agree. We agree, sir, that if the 
 actual inhabitants of Kansas do now, fairly, and 
 in a legitimate mode, exclude slavery, or estab- 
 lish it, by an organic act, their exclusion or estab- 
 lishment — I care not which — shall be decisive and 
 ultimate. This, in my judgment, is not a/«ror 
 CKiifcn-ed on the inhabitants. They have a right 
 to decide the issue; and I will maintain their 
 right in all places, and at all times, even as against 
 tlie supposed sanctity of a liundred Missouri com- 
 jiromises. 
 
 The pacification bill which the Senate has 
 adopted, so far as I am able to judge of its pro- 
 visions, is eminently just towajfd all parties. ItS' 
 object is to secure a fair elections If any amend- 
 ment can be suggested to perfect this design, or 
 more certainly to prevent violence, to prevent 
 irregularities, to prevent fraud, to assure each 
 (;iiizen of the Territory in the free exercise of 
 hi.s riglit of suffrage, I hope that it will be pro- 
 posed by the House of Representatives; and, for 
 one, I am ready to concur in it. Then, sir, as 
 soon as the citizens of Kansas shall have adopted 
 their State constitution, whether that constitu- 
 tion excludes slavery or establishes it, I will vote 
 for the admission of the State without any further 
 question. Even the Senator from Vermont [Mr. { 
 Collamer] and the Senator froin Illinois [Mr. ' 
 Trimbcll] acknowledge that those citizens, I 
 when they come to organize a State government, I 
 have the right to establish slavery, or exclude it, | 
 without any reference to the Missouri compro- j 
 mise.oranyotherspeci'j! of territorial legislation. 
 Having provided a fair election under this bill, ' 
 with all tlie safeguards which occur to me, or can | 
 be suggested by others, I have done my part, i 
 The citizens of Kansas must do the rest. If they I 
 wish to be a non-slaveholding State, and so de- 
 clare, 1 shall demand of the Senator from Mis- 1 
 
 souri, [Mr. Geter,] and all other supporters of 
 j the bill, a vote for unqualified admission. On the 
 ! other hand, if the citizens of Kansas declare that 
 ! they wish to become a slaveholding State — much 
 I as I shall regret, individually, their choice — I can 
 j discover no pretext founded upon the Constitu- 
 I tion, or in any principle of good faith, which 
 ; would justify me for resisting their admission 
 into the Union. 
 
 j How can it be said, therefore, with any regard 
 i to truth or justice, that there is any unfairness in 
 the bill? "Where is the " fraud" so lustily as- 
 serted? "Where is the " cheat" to be found? These 
 are hard words. They have been used frequently 
 in the course of this session, as if certain Sen- 
 ators had an unlimited prerogative to accuse, in- 
 sult, and revile the rest of us. It seems to b« 
 considered parliamentary, as well as courageous, 
 in their code, to impute the worst motives, and 
 1 apply the worst language, to their opponents — to 
 j make accusations here, under the shadow of sen- 
 [atorial privHege, which they would not dare to 
 i make elsewhere, and upon equal terms. 
 
 The Territory of Kansas is now convulsed by 
 civil war. These Senators themselves proclaim 
 the fact. They represent it as worse, much 
 worse, than I have seen reason to believe. They 
 tell us that the people — our fellow-citizens — men, 
 women, children — are in a condition of horribla 
 distress. What remedies are proposed? None, 
 sir, that can be effectual, or satisfactory, except 
 the bill to which the Senate has given its ap- 
 proval. Will those Senators defeat the bill ? Will 
 their partisans in the other House reject it? I 
 adjure you to consider the consequences. Do 
 you desire peace in Kansas ? Do you wish to 
 have a fair election? Do you intend to allow 
 those inhabitants their undoubted rights as Amer- 
 ican citizens ? Then assist in the adoption of the 
 Senate bill. ■ There is nothing else. If you do 
 not assist — if you defeat that bill — if you prolong 
 the sorrowful condition of Kansas — if youslim- 
 I ulate this unnatural controversy to greater lengths 
 — then, I tell you, the curse of every crime which 
 may hencefoflh be committed there — the blood 
 j of every man who may be slain — the honor of 
 ! every woman who may be violated — will rise up 
 ■ in judgment against you. I will not now make 
 I the charge — although, as a retort, it would b« 
 I justifiable — that you desire a continuance of this 
 I anarchy, public distress, and civil war, in order 
 } that you may influence the results of the prcei- 
 I dential election. That, however, is a question 
 I for the country at large; and I shall endeavor, in 
 I my humble sphere, to make the country undcr- 
 1 eland and appreciate it. 
 
Here is the sul)stfin live proposition: That with 
 fril the safeguards suggested in either House of 
 Congress, an election is to bo held in Kansas — 
 a State government formed — and peace happily 
 restored. What is proposed on the other side? 
 First, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Trumbull] 
 wishes to abolish all the laws of the Territory at 
 once, and thus legitimate the outrages, the blood- 
 shed, the anarchy, which he pretends to deplore. 
 Second, he and his political associates offer to 
 subjugate the citizens of the Territory to a con- 
 stitution which they never ratified — which was 
 formed without authority of law — and which 
 modestly declares itself unalterable, in any par- 
 ticular, for m'ne years ! 
 
 Let the people of the United States consider 
 such an issue — ay, sir, let thein decide it. This 
 involves everything, connected with our Govern- 
 ment, which is worthy of consideration. If 
 passion, prejudice, fanaticism — aided by all the 
 modern arts and adjuncts of falsehood — can so 
 mislead the American people that they will not 
 distinguish good from evil — will no longer respect 
 tlie fundamental principles of their own Govern- 
 
 ment — will rashly mutilate that sacred compact, 
 THE Federal CovsriTuriov, in which all the 
 securities of our Union, our peace, our liberty, 
 our happiness, reside, — it is of little consequence 
 who may be the next President, and whether 
 Congress should ever again' assemble. The ex- 
 periment of popular institutions will have utterly 
 failed; for, without patriotism, intelligence, virtue, 
 and self-command, a popular government must 
 fall into confusion and despotism at last. 
 
 In any event, Mr. President, I can do nothing 
 more. I have sacrificed every scruple, every 
 minor consideration, to an ardent desire for peace. 
 I have gone to the extremity of concession. I 
 have agreed to whatever is honest and fair; and I 
 am yet willing to vote for any amendment or 
 scheme of that character which can be suggest- 
 ed. If the Opposition will not meet us in this 
 spirit — if the Senate pacification bill should be 
 rejected by the House — I must discharge mvself 
 henceforth of all responsibility as a Senator and 
 a citizen. I shall have performed my duty to the 
 uttermost; no blood will be upon my skirts, nor 
 any reproach upon my conscience. 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 016 089 357 64