* 
 
 OJrtf 
 
P 685 
 • W167 
 Copy 1 
 
 KANSAS AFFAIRS. 
 
 SPEECH OF HON, HENRY WALDRON, 
 
 n 
 
 OF MICHIGAN, 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 April 8, 1856, 
 In Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. 
 
 Mr. WALDRON said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman : I do not rise for the purpose 
 of taking part in any discussion, relative to the 
 right or duty of the General Government, as con- 
 nected with the institution of Slavery. The State 
 that I have the honor in part to represent, has 
 made known her sentiments on that subject too 
 clearly and distinctly, to render any additional 
 testimony necessary in her behalf. Her people 
 have, amid all the changing fortunes of partisan 
 warfare, expressed but one opinion and main- 
 tained but one position in vindication of the right 
 of the General Government to prohibit the exten- 
 sion of Slavery; and I do not deem it necessary 
 now to reaffirm, by words, the convictions that 
 my constituents have so often embodied in their 
 votes. 
 
 But I occupy the floor for the purpose of ad- 
 dressing myself to the practical questions that 
 are now before the House — questions that con- 
 cern the interests of my fellow-citizens on the 
 other side of the Missouri — questions that involve 
 the peace and prosperity of a vast domain ; and I 
 leave the discussion of abstract political issues to 
 gentlemen whose tastes and inclinations run in that 
 direction. My business now, as a legislator, is 
 with the residents of Kansas — their troubles and 
 their trials, their wrongs and their grievances. 
 It is to these matters that our attention has been 
 called by a variety of official communications, 
 and they constitute legitimate subjects for our 
 consideration. I shall refer briefly to the origin 
 and nature of these troubles, and then cite prece- 
 dents in our past history, that justify the imme- 
 diate admission of Kansas as a free State, as their 
 just and appropriate remedy. 
 
 The troubles in the Territory of Kansas were 
 the subject of an Executive communication to this 
 body before it was organized, or in a condition 
 to give it appropriate consideration ; and besides 
 that message, there have been other communica- 
 tions to this House, that disclose a state of affairs 
 unknown and unparalleled in the history and 
 experience of a Territory. It is disclosed here, 
 in a memorial duly presented and referred, that 
 N he residents of that Territory have been over- 
 
 powered by the citizens of an adjoining State — 
 that they have been driven from their polls by 
 violence — that they have been denied their appro- 
 priate rights and privileges— that an invading 
 force has placed over them, and in defiance of 
 them, a Legislature that is the creature of usurp- 
 ation, and to which they owe no fealty. It is 
 further charged, that this assembly of usurpers, 
 chosen by non-residents, has given the form of 
 law to enactments that conflict with the organic 
 act of the Territory, as well as with the Consti- 
 tution of the Union — enactments that are un- 
 worthy of a free people, and a disgrace to an 
 enlightened age— enactments such as no legisla- 
 tors, who were the servants of a free people, 
 would presume to pass, but which are the appro- 
 priate instruments of men, who seek to oppress 
 a Territory, and force upon it institutions, that 
 its citizens justly abhor. 
 
 And, as the result of this invasion and usurpa- 
 tion, we read, in the memorial of a gentleman 
 who comes here as the agent for the residents of 
 Kansas, that 
 
 " The will of men has been already almost entirely sub- 
 stituted for the administration of justice." * * * • • 
 "There seems to be no disposition, on the part of those 
 who have seized upon the legislative power, to put in 
 motion any system of law in the administration of justice. 
 Trespasses, assaults, and murders, are openly committed, 
 and no one thinks of appeal forredress to the law, because 
 from that source no rediess can be had." 
 
 And the same memorial, as embodied and en- 
 dorsed in a report of a standing committee of this 
 House, alleges — 
 
 '■ In a word, menace, intimidation, and improper influ- 
 ences, are rite in the Territory, especially along the bor- 
 der; men's rights are held in no regard; official authority 
 commands no respect, and seems to have no restraining 
 tendency or power; and the peace of the country hajigs 
 by a thread." ' 6 
 
 And, now, how are these questions and embar- 
 rassments met by the men who passed and sanc- 
 tion the act organizing this identical Territory ? 
 And here allow me for a moment to refer to the 
 legislation that preceded the passage of that act 
 Two years ago, a solemn compact was in force, 
 that had fixed the character of that Territory, and 
 defined its institutions. It was a compact entered 
 
onist 10 that of the United Slatt s. If, before they had put 
 their Government in motion, they had presented them- 
 selves here, and asked admission into the Union — the 
 matter pf boundary out of the question — there would have 
 been no difficulty in the case ; and if they wished now to 
 become a member of the Union, and are content to come 
 in at the right door, it is probable they will have no diffi- 
 culty." 
 
 But the select committee of the Senate to whom 
 the matter was referred — and which, by the way, 
 was Democratic in its composition, with a South- 
 ern Democrat (Felix Grundy) for its chairman — 
 reported a bill providing for the admission of 
 Michigan into the Union, with the Constitution 
 then submitted, and with only one proviso at- 
 tached to it, viz : that the citizens of Michigan 
 should assent to a change of the boundaries. This 
 was the only modification insisted upon; and this 
 "Democratic committee expressly refused to recog- 
 nise the objections urged on the score of irregu- 
 lar and revolutionary proceedings. 
 
 When the bill came up for consideration, Mr. 
 Ewing proposed, as a substitute, a bill which 
 authorized the citizens of the Territory to hold an 
 election for delegates, meet in Convention, frame 
 a Constitution, and send it to Congress for ap- 
 proval; and he urged his substitute upon the 
 Senate, as the only proper and legitimate plan 
 under the circumstances. Mr. Ewing's plan was 
 the same as that now recommended to us by the 
 Executive in the case of Kansas ; and let us see 
 what favor it met from a Democratic Senate. 
 In reply to Mr. Ewing, Mr. Benton said : 
 "The object of the amendment offered by the Senator 
 from Ohio [Mr. Ewing] was to turn the people of Michi- 
 gan back, to consider as nothing all that they had done, 
 and to require them to begin anew, under the sanction of 
 an act of Congress, with holding elections, meeting in 
 Convention, framing a Constitution, and sending it on to 
 Congress. This (he said) was the object, and what rela- 
 ted to the boundary was subordinate a^d incidental, 
 which might be considered under the committee's bill as 
 well as under the proposed amendment. The great ob- 
 ject was, to turn the people of Michigan back, and make 
 them commence in a regular manner, as it was called, in 
 contradistinction to the irregular, disorderly, and revolu- 
 tionary manner of conducting themselves, which had 
 been imputed to them." 
 
 ***** * * 
 
 " Mr. B. then entered into an ample vindication of the 
 rights of the people of Michigan and Arkansas to meet in 
 Convention, without a preliminary law from Congress- 
 adopt Constitutions, and send them here for examination. 
 Conventions were original acts of the people. They de- 
 pended upon inherent and inalienable rights. The people 
 of any State may, at any time, meet in Convention, with- 
 out a law of their Legislature, and without anv provision, 
 or against any provision in their Constitution, and may 
 alter or abolish the whole frame of Government, as they 
 pleased. The sovereign power to govern themselves was 
 in the majority, and they could not be divested of it." 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, listen to the remarks of 
 the champion of Democracy who followed Mr. 
 Benton in that debate, and who is entitled to 
 most respectful hearing from gentlemen on the 
 other side of the Chamber, for it was no less a 
 man than the Hon. James Buchanan, then Sena- 
 tor from Pennsylvania. Hear his comments upon 
 the proposition to turn back the residents of 
 Michigan, as General Pierce now advises us to 
 turn back the people of Kansas : 
 
 "He had good reasons for desiring that the bill might 
 be very (speedily decided on; and therefore, in what he 
 had to say, he should take up as little of the time of the 
 Senate as possible. The first objection he uhould consider 
 was the one suggested, rather than insisted on, by the 
 Senator from Dulaware; and that was, that no act had 
 
 been passed by Congress for the purpose of enabling the 
 people of Michigan to form a State Constitution, in obe- 
 dience to what had been supposed to be the custom in re- 
 gard to other States that have been admitted into the 
 Union. Now, was there, he would ask, any reason for 
 passing such an act? Was it required by principle, or 
 was it required by former practice ? He utterly denied 
 that it was required either by the one or the other, befors 
 a new State may be admitted into the Union ; and whether 
 it was given previously or subsequently to the application 
 of a State for admission into the Union, was of no earthly 
 importance. He admitted that the passage of such an act 
 previously to the admission of a new State was the best 
 course to adopt; but, if a people had formed a republican 
 Constitution, and if Congress should think that they had 
 assumed proper boundaries, was there any objection to 
 their admission, whether the preliminary law had been 
 passed or otherwise?" 
 
 ******* 
 
 "Ought they to be offended with the eagerness of the 
 new States for admission into all the rights, privileges, and 
 benefits, of this Union, at a time when some of the old 
 States were threatening to leave it ? Ought we not (said 
 he) to hail the coming in of these new States, our own 
 flesh and blood, and, on account of the absence of a little 
 form, not send them dissatisfied from our doors? " 
 ******* 
 
 " He did hope that by this bill all objections would be 
 removed; and that this State, so ready to rush into our 
 arms, would not be repu sed, because of the absence of 
 some formalities, which, perhaps, were very proper, but 
 certainly not indispensable." 
 
 The gentleman who closed this discussion was 
 Mr. Niles, of Connecticut — a Democrat, who, with 
 honorable consistency, maintains the rights of the 
 residents of Kansas to-day as gallantly as he de- 
 fended the pioneers of Michigan twenty years ago. 
 In fact, his remarks apply so pertinently to the 
 present case, that it only requires to substitute 
 the word " Kansas " for " Michigan," to make it 
 a capital Free State speech, as will be seen by 
 the following extract: 
 
 " Not being able to be admitted in the way they sought, 
 th' y have been forced to lake their oa u course, and stand 
 upon their rights — rights secured to them by the Constitu- 
 tion, and a solemn, irrepealable Ordinance. They have 
 taken the census of the Territory ; they have formed a 
 Constitution, elected their officers', and the whole ma- 
 chinery of a State Government is ready to be put in ope- 
 ration; they are only awaiting your action. Having as- 
 sumed this attitude, they now demand admission as a 
 matter of right — they demand it as an act of justice at your 
 hands. Are they now to be repelled, or to be told that 
 they must retrace their step *, and come into trie Union in 
 the way they at first sought to do, but could not obtain the 
 sanction of Congress? Sir, I fear the consequences of 
 such a decision; I tremble at an act of such injustice. 
 
 " There is * point beyond which a free people cannot be 
 driven. Why are the people of Michigan to be vexed and 
 harassed in this way ? They feel that they are treated 
 harshly — that great injustice is- done them; they have been 
 opposed and resisted in every course they have pursued 
 to obtain admission into the Union; and you have now 
 divided their Territory, and taken from them a part of it, 
 to which they attach great value. In these measures of 
 opposition to Michigan, the Senator from Ohio has acted 
 a prominent part. He has succeeded in opposing their 
 former applications, and in keeping them out of the Union; 
 he has carried through a bill to divide their Territory, of 
 the justice or injustice of which I will not speak, but the 
 people of Michigan regard it as an act of great injustice. 
 Will the gentleman still persist in his opposition? jboes 
 he wish to drive thatpeople to desperation — to force them 
 into acts of violence ? Does he think that, by breaking 
 up what has been done, by creating an excitement, and 
 forcing the people to organize their Government »gain, the 
 result may be different?--that it may be more favorable to 
 a certain party or portion of the population, which, he in- 
 sinuates, took no part in the proceedings in organizing the 
 State Government? Whatever may be the object, such 
 a course is fraught with much danger. Let us not pre- 
 sume too much in the forbearance of the people under 
 measures which, in whatever light we may view them, 
 they will regard as unjust and oppressive. Who is will- 
 ing to be responsible for an act operating on a whole 
 people, with their passions excited and inflamed, and cal- 
 
dilated to rekindle the extinguished flames, and to pro- 
 duce evils worse than the border war which has happily 
 subsided? Miould the amendment of th»* Senator pre vail, 
 a heavy responsibility will reist somewhere; and I tear 
 a* much of it will (all on thtt honorable Senator as he 
 will h .d it convenient to bear." 
 
 And when the vote was taken on the substitute 
 offered by Mr. Ewing, it received only seven af- 
 firmative votes, (page 276, vol. 3,) and among the 
 negative vote3 I find such names as Mr. Benton, 
 Mr. Buchanan, Mr. King of Alabama, Mr. Grundy, 
 and others of like fame and sentiment — men 
 whose claims to Democracy cannot well be dis- 
 puted ; and the bill providing for admission was 
 ordered to a third reading with only eight votes 
 in the negative ; and it was subsequently order- 
 ed to a third reading in the House of Represent- 
 atives by a vote of 153 to 45; and Franklin 
 Pierce, then a Representative from New Hamp- 
 shire, made one of the one hundred and fifty-three ! 
 
 And here let me call the attention of the Com- 
 mittee to the decisions of a Democratic House 
 of Representatives, when the application of Mich- 
 igan was first made to that body. I find, by ref- 
 erence to the Congressional records of that day, 
 that, in January, 1836, a member presented a 
 memorial from the Senate and House of Repre- 
 sentatites of the State of Michigan; and this, be 
 it remembered, was months previous to its ad- 
 mission into the Union. It was not a memorial 
 from citizens of the Territory of Michigan — not a 
 memorial from the Territorial Legislature — not a 
 memorial from any Territorial authority known 
 to Congress — but it came from a sovereignty, self- 
 organized and of revolutionary origin, according 
 to modern political ethics, as expounded by the 
 President in his message. 
 
 When this memorial was offered, amotion was 
 at once made u that it be rejected;" and a few 
 extracts from the speeches on that occasion will 
 best show the reasons why that motion was urged. 
 
 Mr. Hannegan, who moved to reject the peti- 
 tion, remarked : 
 
 " The memorial purports to come from a power which 
 neither himself nor the House could recognise. If it came 
 from the Territory of Michigan, assuming no powers, he 
 wou d willingly let it go to tne committee. In what situa- 
 tion would this House place itself by accepting tliis memo- 
 rial, coming, as it purported, from the sovereign State of 
 Michigan ? It would be recognising her right to send her 
 communications here as a sovereign State. If we accept 
 one communication, we must accept all she chooses to 
 •end us. There is something in this beyond the mere ac- 
 ciptaiiee of the memorial.'' 
 
 Mr. Bond said : 
 
 "The memorial did not purport to come from.citizens of 
 the Territory of Michigan, but from the Senate and House 
 of Representatives of the State of Michigan. We ought to 
 take care how we establish precedents of this nature. If 
 the memorial was from the citizens of the Territory of 
 Michigan, he would admit their right to have it referred ; 
 but this memorial was not from the citizens of Michigan — 
 it was from the Legislature of a State which had never 
 been recognised by Congress. If there was such a State, 
 it was unknown to the Constitution and laws. Let us. then. 
 be mindful that we make no precedent in this case. Mich- 
 igan has a Representative on this floor, and any petitions 
 the people may have to present through that Representa- 
 tive he would be ready to receive ana refer." 
 
 Mr. Pinckney said : 
 
 " He would have no objection to the memorial, if it came 
 constitutionally before us. What does it purport to be? A 
 memorial from the Senate and House of Representatives 
 of the State of Michigan. He would ask whether there 
 was any »uch Legislature known to the House? Is there 
 
 »ny such State admitted into the Union? Can we recop 
 nise her as a Slate ? Certainly not. Either she is a Ter- 
 ritory or a Sta'e ? If a State, how comes it that she is rep- 
 resented by a Territorial Delegate in Congress? If she is 
 a Territory, how comes this memorial from a State ? Con- 
 gress would be transcending her powers by receiving the 
 memonal a* coming from a Slate. If we receive this 
 memorial we need not attempt to treat her as a Territory.' 
 
 Mr. Kinnard said : 
 
 " He felt as ardent an attachment to the right of petition 
 as any other member; he would not surrender, in behalf 
 of his own constituents, its fair and constitutional exercise; 
 and he would not vote to deny the same sacred privilege to 
 any portion of the American people. But, in benalf of his 
 constituents, he claimed the authority to distinguish be- 
 tween the petitions of the people of the Territory of Mich- 
 igan, and the illegal, unconstitutional demands of thr. self- 
 styled Se.iate and House of Representatives < f Michigan, 
 particularly, as in the present ca.^e, when those demands 
 are not only in contempt of the authority of the Union, in 
 derogation of the independence and vested rights of the 
 State of Indiana, but altogether mischievous and inexpe- 
 dient." 
 
 It would reasonably be expected, after a peru- 
 sal of the Kansas message, that its author would 
 be found sustaining these gentlemen in their ef- 
 forts to avoid any recognition of an authority in 
 Michigan, such as he now so earnestly depre- 
 cates in the case of Kansas ; but the record shows 
 precisely the contrary. Mr. Pierce voted against 
 the motion to reject ; and with him voted a large 
 majority of that House. Mr. Hannegan then 
 moved to amend a motion to receive and refer 
 the memorial, by a declaration that the House 
 " regard the same in no other light than as the vol- 
 untary act of private individuals" so as to avoid 
 any recognition of a State organization ; and this 
 qualifying clause was adopted ; but it was adopt- 
 ed with the vote of Franklin Pierce recorded against 
 it. I submit, with these votes on the record, 
 whether the President i3 not the last man who 
 should arraign the people of Kansas, for their 
 peacable efforts to secure a Government ? 
 
 But, to return to the history of the act provi- 
 ding for the admission of Michigan — this act rati- 
 fied and confirmed the Constitution and State 
 Government, which the people of Michigan had 
 formed for themselves, with only one condition 
 and proviso, to wit : that the people, through a 
 Convention of delegates, elected especially for 
 that purpose, should assent to the change of 
 boundaries as specified in the act ; and, whenever 
 such assent was given, the President of the Uni- 
 ted States was to announce it by proclamation ; 
 and thereupon, and without any further proceed- 
 ing on the part of Congress, the admission of the 
 State was considered as complete, and her Sena- 
 tors and Representatives were entitled to seats 
 without further delay. 
 
 Under the provisions of this act, the Legislature 
 of Michigan called a Convention of delegates, and 
 provided for their election. The election was 
 held, and the Convention met in pursuance of 
 the law, every organized county being represent- 
 ed. This Convention refused to give its assent 
 to the change of boundary, and declined the 
 boon of admission into the Union, on tbe terms 
 proposed. The official evidence of such " dis- 
 sent" was transmitted by the officers of the Con- 
 vention to the President, and there, for the time 
 beins, the matter rested. 
 
 This Convention was held in the month of Sep- 
 
6 
 
 tember ; and its refusal to give any assent to the 
 change of boundary was unsatisfactory t*> a por- 
 tion of the people. There was a party in. favor 
 of giving assent to the terms proposed ; and that 
 party demanded another Convention, and deter- 
 mined to hold it. This last Convention assem- 
 bled in the month of December, not held or elect- 
 ed by virtue of any act of the Territorial or State 
 Legislature, but originating from the people them- 
 selves, in pursuance of resolutions adopted in 
 their primary assemblies. Two of the oldest 
 counties in the State, comprising a population of 
 some twenty-five thousand souls, refused to rec- 
 ognise the validity of this December Convention, 
 claiming that it was held without warrant of law, 
 and in defiance of the regular Convention, which 
 had previously expressed the sentiments of the 
 people. There was not a poll opened in either 
 cf those counties, although they comprise, in pop- 
 ulation, one-sixth of the entire number ; but this 
 self-constituted Convention was held without any 
 delegates from these counties, and that Conven- 
 tion gave its assent to the terms proposed by 
 Congress, and transmitted to the Executive its 
 proceedings, as a compliance with the act, and 
 as entitling the State to admission. 
 
 Now, I refer to these two elections for dele- 
 gates, because, in some respects, they resemble 
 two elections in the Territory of Kansas, that 
 have been the subject of earnest discussion in 
 this Hall. The September election, like the elec- 
 tion that chose Mr. Whitfield, had the benefits 
 that the forms of legal authority confer, and it 
 had the additional merit, that no fraud or vio- 
 lence perverted or disgraced it. The December 
 election, like the election that chose Mr. Reeder, 
 was the spontaneous act of the sovereigns them- 
 selves, done without the interposition or assent 
 of the constituted authorities, but with an 
 avowed determination not to recognise their acts. 
 Now, it is important to ascertain which of these 
 elections was regarded by a Democratic Congress 
 as expressing the will of the citizens of Michigan, 
 .and what rules they adopted as precedents for 
 our action in this case. 
 
 First, what did a Democratic President do with 
 the proceedings of these two conflicting Conven- 
 tions ? Did he presume to endorse one of them 
 as the valid, legitimate Convention under the law, 
 and denounce the other as an " illegal ,: and 
 "revolutionary" assemblage? Did he make 
 them the occasion of a special message to Con- 
 gress, in order to justify one Convention at the 
 expense of the other ? Not at all. General Jack- 
 son met these questions with fairness, with man- 
 liness, with dignity — with a desire to mete out 
 substantial justice to the citizens of Michigan. 
 He transmits the proceedings of both Conven- 
 tions to Congress, and takes occasion to inform 
 it that the first Convention " was elected by the 
 people of Michigan, pursuant to an act of the 
 State Legislature passed on the 25th of July 
 last, in consequence of the above-mentioned act 
 of Congress, and that it declined giving its as- 
 sent to the fundamental condition prescribed by 
 Congress, and rejected the same." 
 
 He further informs it, that the second Conven- 
 tion, that did give assent, "was not held or elect- 
 
 ed by virtue of any act of the Territorial or State 
 Legislature: it originated from the people them- 
 selves, and was chosen by them in pursuance of 
 resolutions adopted in primary assemblies held in 
 their respective counties ; " and then, as indicating 
 his own views as to the propriety of recognising 
 this last Convention, he says that, if its proceed- 
 ings had reached him during the recess of Con- 
 gress, he should have issued his proclamation 
 under the law, on being satisfied that they emana- 
 ted from a Convention of delegates elected, " in 
 point of fact" by the people of the State ; but, as 
 Congress was in session, he deemed it most appro- 
 priate to refer the matter to them. 
 
 And it went to the Senate, and the Senate re- 
 ferred it to the Committee on the Judiciary — a 
 Democratic committee, instituted for the express 
 purpose of investigating questions of law ; but it 
 raised no such questions on that occasion. Like 
 the Committee of Electtions in this€fouse, look- 
 ing into the Kansas elections, it wanted facts with 
 a view to determine which Convention should be 
 recognised as binding and obligatory upon the 
 people of Michigan; and in order to obtain them 
 the chairman (Mr. Grundy) addressed a letter to 
 several citizens of Michigan, asking them for in- 
 formation as to the aggregate vote given in Sep- 
 tember and December, respectively; and as to the 
 true wishes of the people of Michigan in refer- 
 ence to the acceptance of the terms prescribed. 
 The answers to this communication were sent to 
 the Senate as part of the report; and the commit- 
 tee, concluding, from the facts presented, that the 
 second Convention, with all its irregularities, 
 truly expressed the will of the people, introduced 
 a bill recognising it in preference to the first Con- 
 vention, held under legislative authority, and ad- 
 mitting Michigan into the Union by virtue of 
 its act. 
 
 "When this bill was under consideration in the 
 Senate, it was assailed on the same grounds, 
 and for the same reasons, that are resorted to in 
 order to prevent the admission of Kansas with 
 its Free State Constitution. 
 
 Mr. Bayard said : 
 
 "But it seemed to him that this bill, with its preamble, 
 involved the most monstrous political heresy, which tend- 
 ed, incidentally, to the adoption of a doctrine subversive 
 of all regular government: and entertaining this opinion, 
 as he did, he should vote against the bill. By passing this 
 bill, the Senate would be sanctioning the most obnoxious 
 principle, and would inflict a vital injury on the cause of 
 Freedom. Mr. B. argued that, According to the provisions 
 of the Ordinance of 17«7, which regulates the d sposition 
 of the Territory northwest of the Ohio, and east of the 
 Mississippi, Michigan had no right to form a Constitution 
 at all, without the leave of Congrt ss. 
 
 "He maintained that the Convention, which was held 
 in December last, was not a Convention according to the 
 rightful signification of that word. It was an abuse of 
 the term. If the Senate passed the bill under the present 
 state of facts, tuey were setting up a most monstrous and 
 atrocious principle. He contended tlmthe first Conven- 
 tion was legally and properly organized, being broughl 
 together by an act of the Legislature The legislative 
 power was the only exponent of the public will.'' 
 
 And Mr. Preston said, in reply to Mr. Bu- 
 chanan : 
 
 "The sweeping nullification of the gentleman from 
 Pennsylvania [Mr. Buchanan] goes to the annihilation of 
 the Government of Michigan— to the breaking down of 
 all her solemn charters and engagements." 
 
 Mr. Calhoun said : 
 
" He had said thai the movement of Michigan was rev- 
 olutionary j that she threw olf the authority of the U Ion 
 in calling a Convention togother and forming a Constitu- 
 tion. In that we were at perfect liberty either to treat it 
 as a revolutionary movement, as it was, in point of fact, 
 or to offer her conditions upon which she might be admit- 
 ted into the Union. His opinion was, '.hit the thing could 
 he undone that was done , that Michigan could <;o back 
 to her original position, and that she should come in Ba- 
 rter the usual form, as did Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana. In 
 other words, that the Government should have leave to 
 erect herself into a Slate. 
 
 " A. great question next arose — a question of immense 
 importance : Had the Convention of December a right to 
 assent to the conditions, and did it speak the voice of 
 .Michigan? And had Congress a right to recognise its 
 It was well known that the Convention, 
 held at Ann Arbor did not represent one-third of the peo- 
 ple. All knew, too. that it did not represent the constitu- 
 ted authorises. Now, had Congress a right to admit 
 Michigan upon such proceedings as these? Could any 
 man conceive it to be a Convention of the people of .Mich 
 igan? No.it was imposible. It wa- neither more nor 
 .in u caucus, got up by party machinery. It was a 
 criminal caucus. The Convention of December had no 
 to supersede the acts of the Convention held in Sep- 
 tember; and he entertained the opinion that those men 
 ■ might be indicted at common law, and, what 
 was more, tliey ought to be." 
 
 It seems, by this extract, that the residents of 
 as arc not the first of our fellow-citizens who 
 have been denounced as liable to indictment be- 
 cause they made peaceable efforts to get into the 
 Union. It seems that there were like anathemas 
 hurled at the citizens of Michigan from the Fed- 
 eral Capitol j but my constituents survived them, 
 and, I presume, the citizens of Kansas will be 
 equally b$ fortunate. 
 
 I now tarn to the other side of the argument 
 in the Senate of the United States — to the gallant 
 i indication of the citizens of Michigan in reply 
 to the extracts I have quoted Rbove. 
 
 Mr. King said : 
 
 "But some gentlemen, admitting this, insisted thai tie 
 proceeding was revolutionary, and that to allow the peo- 
 ple, in primary assem dies, 'to set themselves up above 
 ■" authority,' (to use their twn language,) 
 I at the very foundation of our insti'utions. This 
 [range doctrine at the present day. It was the doc- 
 trine of the house of Stuart and of Bourbon, of Austria 
 aud oi ;. It was the doctrii e of the Hoi) Al- 
 
 : ll was the doctrine of despotism; it was n doc- 
 trine long since exploded, he had thought, by all free 
 (iovernments, punicularly our own; and if he thought 
 there were any material portion of the people of the Uni- 
 ites who entertained jsuch doctrines, he should feel 
 as much real alarm as gentlemen had imagined they felt 
 «t the proposition of the committee. The whole of our 
 institutions, both State and Federdl, were based upon 
 this 'monstrous principle' and had no other right to rest 
 on. The debate had been a mo-t extraordinary one; gen- 
 tlemen had conjured up frightful pictures, and then got 
 ied at the works of their own imagination*." 
 Mr. Buchanan made an elaborate argument in 
 defence of the second Convention; and much of 
 I cecli has a direct application to the present 
 condition of Kansas. He says : 
 
 ' If it wen necessary to place the claims of Michigan 
 
 nlher grounds, it might ' e done with great force. 
 
 ose we were to admit tHat their proceedings had been 
 
 -regular, ought that t.> exclude tier from the Union ! On 
 
 it to act like statesmen acquainted whh 
 
 story of our own country. We ought r.ot to apply the 
 
 rules 6f abstract political science too rigorou 
 
 It has been our practice heretofore to treat 
 
 ant Territories with parental care, to nurse them 
 
 i. when they had attained the age of 
 
 nunhood, to admit them i .to the family without requiring 
 
 rom them a rigid adherence to forms. The great questions 
 
 ■ ' are. do they contain a sufficient population? 
 
 lave I i republican Constitution '. and are they 
 
 .• to enter the Union upon the terms which we pro- 
 
 >o-*e .' If so, all the preliminary proceeding" have been 
 
 considered but mere forms, which we have » a ived in re- 
 peated instances " 
 
 And Mr. Benton sums up the mWs of the 
 controversy as follows : 
 
 "The people there had held a Convention,! their own 
 power, to ace pt a fundamentd.1 condition of ;,.j r admis- 
 sion into the Union. They have accepted the condition ; 
 and th Objection is, that ihe Convention was-, lawless 
 and revolutionary mob, and that a law ou^ht he made 
 to suppress and punish such assemblages in fui re. Mr. 
 B. would hold a proposition for such a law to be n e quint- 
 essence, not of European, bul of Asiatic despot. m; and 
 sure he was it would receive no countenance by ", e vote 
 of this Chamber. In saying this, he spoke upom recol 
 I ct on of the pa<-t, as well as upon a view of the (resent 
 At the last session of Congress, all this de<ur> 
 lawless and revolutionary mobs had been lavishe upon 
 the Conventions, both of Arkansas and Michigtu, be 
 cause, being Tenitones, they had held Convent on and 
 framed Constitutions, without the authority of Congress. 
 Our answer to these denunciations were the same ih i we 
 give now, namely : 1. That they had a right lo do so i ut 
 out our authority, and all thai we could require was.' hat 
 they should send us their Constitutions, that we m 
 they were republican ; and, 2. That these Terriu . 
 several times applied to Congres- for an act to regulite 
 the holding of their Conventions, which were always fc 
 fused by the political party which then held the tupreri 
 acy in this Chamber; and that to refuse them an act tr 
 regulate the holding of a Conventi, n, when they askea 
 for it. and then to denounce them for holding a ConvenA 
 ■ >ut law, was unreasonable and contradictory,! 
 and -'injected otirse ves to the reproach both of injustice' 
 and i. consistency. These were our answers then ; and. 
 rJedj thai those who denounced the Arkansas and 
 Michigan Conventions as lawless and revolutionary mol s, 
 would find themselves unsupported by ihe vote of the 
 Senute ! •' 
 
 The result of this controversey was the passage 
 of the bill recognising the second Convention as 
 binding Michigan by its assent, and with only 
 ten Senators voting in the negative; while such 
 statesmen as Benton, Buchanan, Silas Wright, 
 Tallmadge, Niles, and William It. King, voted in 
 the affirmative. 
 
 The bill then was considered in the House of 
 Representatives, where the same objections and 
 arguments were urged as in the Senate. But 
 the bill was ordered to a third reading by the 
 strong vote of 148 to 58; and a reference to the 
 yeas and nays will show the name of Franklin 
 Pierce recorded in the affirmative. 
 
 Yes, sir; the President, who now regards the 
 peaceable elections and Conventions in Kansas as 
 'illegal/' and of "revolutionary character," then 
 voted to recognise a Convention that was held 
 confessedly without authority — that only claimed 
 to represent a part of the settlers, and that assumed 
 to speak where the legal Convention had already 
 declared its determination. lie voted to make the 
 decisions of that Convention binding on the peo- 
 ple of Michigan, iu reference to the most import- 
 ant interests that a Convention could ever pass 
 upon ; and, having done so, I cannot realize the 
 force of his recommendations in the case of Kan- 
 sas, when they differ so widely from his own 
 practice iu the case of Michigan. 
 
 I have thus briefly and hastily referred to the 
 circumstances that characterized the admission 
 of Michigan. She was met, to some extent, by 
 embarrassments and obstacles, but, in despite of 
 them, she fought her way into the Union ; and, 
 now that she is there, she is disposed to help 
 Kansas in, with the same free institutions that 
 hare been sanctioned in her own experience. 
 And Michigan only regrets that statesmen, wnc 
 
8 
 
 vindicatewer pioneers, and fought their battles 
 in the CaMol, now strike their flag and ground 
 their arnjjprhen the interests of Slavery stand in 
 their wa« But it is a satisfaction to know that, 
 though n may falter, principles never change. 
 The docflpes thatwere enunciated in behalf of the 
 rights (Michigan, are as sound to-day as when 
 mortalas first gave them utterance ; and the pre- 
 cedent#stablished in her history will outlive all 
 the slptcomings and inconsistencies of their 
 authe 
 
 MrAhairman, every reason and every consid- 
 eratijtof necessity that justified the admission 
 of Mshigan, applies with tenfold force to the 
 casepf Kansas, in view of the unprecedented 
 lties that surround it, and which can only 
 viated by its admission as a free State. 
 Sf it be true, as now alleged, that the citi- 
 of Kansas are traitors and revolutionists, 
 thjfn it is equally true, that the citizens of Michi- 
 were traitors and revolutionists, and Frank- 
 ijfi Pierce, James Buchanan, and their associates, 
 ere apologists and defenders of the treason. I 
 ;eave to the friends of those gentlemen, to justify 
 and reconcile their record. That is no matter of 
 mine ; but it is a part of my duty to deny and re- 
 pel the aspersions that are cast, by implication, 
 upon the settlers of Michigan ; for, when gentle- 
 man attack the Free State men of Kansas, they as- 
 over their backs, the pioneers of my own 
 jf tate ; and, as a citizen of Michigan, regardful 
 if her high fame and unspotted escutcheon in the 
 past, I hurl back all imputations upon her order- 
 loving and law-abiding citizens, while I also, as 
 /a legislator, ask that the precedents established 
 /in her history, may be made the standard of our 
 / action in this case ; and I make the appeal more 
 / especially to gentlemen on the opposite side of 
 / the Chamber, as these precedents come down to 
 / us with high Democratic sanction and authority. 
 / These precedents were made in the palmy, better 
 days of Democracy, before it had degenerated in- 
 to a mere organization to do the bidding of the 
 slaveholder, and at a time when Northern men 
 were not compelled to outrage sentiment at home 
 by their bids to secure Southern votes. 
 
 There are other considerations that induce me 
 to ask for the settlers of Kansas that guardian- 
 ship and protection which the General Govern- 
 ment owes to its citizens. There are many in 
 that Territory who were but lately citizens of 
 my own State — men who have gone there to open 
 a wilderness to prosperity and civilization ; men 
 around whom the grateful recollections and kind 
 regards of my constituents still cluster ; men who 
 have gone there on a mission as high and holy as 
 that which the Pilgrim Fathers undertook when 
 they shaped their course for the rock of Plym- 
 outh ; for they go there to plant the institutions 
 of Freedom, and to lay broad and deep the found- 
 ations of a free State, where the curse of op- 
 pression never shall enter as a blight and a 
 mildew. 
 
 These men have breathed the free air of the 
 Northwest from their childhood — they have ex- 
 perienced the blessings that flow from the policy 
 of Slavery prohibition — they have witnessed 
 changes and progress in the Northwest Territory, 
 such as no other section of our Union can boast 
 of — they have, in the space of one generation, 
 seen the wilderness reclaimed and subdued, and, 
 under the genial influences of free institutions, 
 become strong and powerful in all the elements 
 that constitute true national greatness ; and they 
 realize that, for this onward career in the pathway 
 of progress, they are indebted mainly to the wis- 
 dom and patriotism of the statesmen who enacted 
 the Ordinance of 1787, which made labor honor- 
 able, and proved to them a shield and a barrier 
 against the incursions of Slavery. They regard 
 that Ordinance as the corner-stone of their pros- 
 perity; and having realized in their own experi- 
 ence these benefits, and appreciating their origin, 
 they naturally demand for themselves and their 
 children the same guarantees of prosperity, in 
 the new homes they make in the wilderness. 
 
 For such purposes, and with such motives, have 
 hundreds gone to the Territory of Kansas from 
 my own State, and hundreds more are preparing 
 to follow. They disclaim any intention of inva- 
 ding the rights of others ; but they know their 
 own, and will not be slow to maintain them. 
 They go there, not as transient trespassers for an 
 unlawful purpose, but with a determination to 
 cast their lot and link their fortunes with its fu- 
 ture destinies. And I assure members. of this 
 House, that when the attempt is made to " sub- 
 due " them, it will be found that they value life 
 less than the rights of freemen. Of that fact, gen- 
 tlemen, an incident of the past winter is conclu- 
 sive evidence ; there are now blood-stains on the 
 soil of Kansas, marking the spot where one of its 
 pioneers sacrificed life in defence of his rights — 
 a man from my own district, who took with him 
 qualities and virtues that would rendei him an 
 acquisition to any land. He was overpowered 
 and murdered by numbers, for no other crime 
 than that he loved Freedom better than Slavery ; 
 and his blood, from that day to this, has called 
 in vain upon your officials, for the vengeance of 
 the law. His manly bearing in the hour of con- 
 flict was worthy of the cause for which he suf- 
 fered, and is an earnest of the temper and char- 
 acter of those who follow him. They may be 
 overpowered, but they never surrender ; and, 
 when invading forces attempt to wrest from them 
 the right of self-government, or impose upon them 
 institutions against their will, they will meet the 
 issue as becomes men who were born and nurtur- 
 ed amid the institutions of Freedom ; and, when 
 aggressions and usurpations present to them the 
 alternatives of slavery or blood, they will fall, like 
 Brown of Leavenworth, with their faces to the 
 foe, and their blood, like the blood of martyrs, 
 will be the seed of Freedom, yielding, in no distant 
 future, a glorious return. 
 
 BUELL Sc BLANCHARD, PRINTERS, WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 016 094 451 1 # 
 
 Conservation Resource*