Ill wi. imi .

— *

m

^

— >

ro,

CO

a:
=
I llrtiihiirWltiMMhiiHltfiiiaiiMillMliliiiiiiiliMMIMI
YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

ACQUIRED BY EXCHANGE

The Repeal of the
Missouri Compromise

The Repeal of the
Missouri Compromise
• Its Origin and Authorship

By
P. Orman Ray. Ph. D.
Professor of History and Political Science,
The Pennsylvania State College

Submitted to the University Faculty of Cornell
University in partial fulfillment of the require
ments for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Cleveland, Ohio
The Arthur H. Clark Company
1909

COPYRIGHT 1908 BY
P. ORMAN RAY

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

TO
FLORENCE

My Secretary of State for Home Affairs
commissioned for life

CONTENTS
Preface . . . . . . ii
Introduction  15
Chapter I. Missouri Politics, 1 844- 1852-
Benton's Retirement from the Senate-The
Jackson Resolutions-Benton's "Appeal" 27
Chapter II. Missouri Politics, 1844- 1852
(continued) -James S. Green's Reply to
Benton's "Appeal. "-Benton's Election to
the House in 1852 .... 51
Chapter III. The Pacific Railroad-Ben-
ton's "Central National Highway"-Ne-
braska Territorial Movement, 1852-Abel-
ard Guthrie-Douglas's Lack of Interest inv^
Nebraska-Atchison's Inconsistency . 72
Chapter IV. The Missouri Senatorial Cam
paign of 1853-Controversy over the Legal
ity of "Immediate" Settlement in Nebras-
ka-Atchison is Forced to Champion the
Repeal. ..... 109
Chapter V. The Provisional Government
of Nebraska-Rev. Thomas Johnson-The
Commissioner of Indian Affairs Visits Ne
braska-Charges against Him . . 142
Chapter VI. Popular Interest in Nebraska
among Missourians and lowans-Hadley

8 CONTENTS
D. Johnson-Congressional Action Antici-
pated-Senator Douglas in Europe-His Let-
^ter to Walker and Lanphier-The Doctrine
'of Supersedure .... ^"3
Chapter VII. The Congressional Aspects
of the Missouri Contest-The Nebraska Bill
in the 33d Congress-The Evidence of
Washington Correspondents-Pressure upon
T)ouglas to Champion the Repeal-The In
fluence of Senator Atchison-Report of Jan
uary 4, 1854-Dixon's Amendment-The Ad-
, ministration . . . . . 195
Chapter VIII. The Congressional Aspects
of the Missouri Contest (continued) -How
the Kansas-Nebraska Bill with the Repeal
Affected Colonel Benton-Senator Atchi
son's Letter Reviewing the Campaign-Col
onel John A. Parker's "Secret History of
the Kansas-Nebraska Bill"-Testimony of
Francis P. Blair, Jr.-Senator Atchison, the
Real Author of the Repeal. . . 220
Appendix 'A. A New Explanation of Senator Douglas's
Motives. ..... 237
B. William C. Price. ... 243
C. Senator Atchison's Letter, June 5, 1854. 253
D. Colonel Parker's "Secret History of the
Kansas-Nebraska Bill " . . . 264
E. Atchison's Claims and Douglas's Denials. 276
F. Selected Bibliography . . . 289

PREFACE
This book is a thesis submitted to the University
Faculty of Cornell University in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy. It embodies the results of an investiga
tion begun in the American History Seminary at
Cornell University in 1902- 1903.
The manuscript has been read by Dr. Charles
H. Hull, Professor of American History, Cornell
University, Dr. Ralph C. H. Catterall, Professor of
European History, Cornell University, and by Dr.
James A. Woodburn, Professor of American History
and Politics, Indiana State University. To each of
these gentlemen I am indebted for valuable sugges
tions. Especially large is the debt I owe to Doc
tor Hull, not only for his unflagging interest, con
stant encouragement and active assistance in obtain
ing material, but also for many keen, but kindly,
criticisms and much invaluable advice in the ardu
ous labor of preparing the work for publication.
Cordial thanks are due to Hon. Kirk D.
Pierce, of Hillsboro, New Hampshire, for unre
stricted access to the existing papers of his uncle,
President Franklin Pierce ; to Mrs. R. E. Wynne of
Tappahannock, Virginia, for the opportunity to ex-

12 preface

amine the existing papers of her father, Colonel
John A. Parker; to Hon. George W. Martin, Secre
tary of the Kansas State Historical Society, William
E. Connelley, Esq., of Topeka, Kansas, William M.
Paxton, Esq., of Platte City, Missouri, Professor
Allen Johnson of Bowdoin College, the late Colonel
William F. Switzler of Columbia, Missouri, and
the late Miss Mary Louise Dalton, Librarian of the
Missouri Historical Society of St. Louis, for placing
in my hands material which without their kind as
sistance would have been inaccessible.
I am under great obligation to the officials
of the Boston Public Library, the Library of the
Boston Athenaeum, Harvard University Library, the
Library of the University of Missouri, the Wiscon
sin State Historical Library, the Pennsylvania State
Library, the Library of Cornell University, the Li
brary of the University of Vermont, the Library of
the Pennsylvania State College, and the Library
of Congress. Their uniform courtesy and valuable
assistance have greatly facilitated the collection of
material for this book.
A word of grateful appreciation is also due
those individuals, too numerous to mention by name,
who have taken pains to reply to letters asking
for information upon a multitude of minor points.
Some criticism is anticipated on account of the
length of many quotations in the text. Two reasons
may be offered in defense. First, it has seemed de
sirable to render accessible to students, lay and pro
fessional, much of the new evidence upon which this
work is based and which otherwise would remain

preface 13
nearly or quite as inaccessible as manuscript material.
In the second place, the unusually full presentation
of evidence reflects a desire to remove reasonable
ground for asserting that the author has colored or
distorted the evidence to prove his case.
Invaluable assistance in the reading of proof has
been rendered by my wife and by Mr. Edwin Angeli
Cottrell, Instructor in History and Political Science
in the Pennsylvania State College. P. Orman Ray
State College, Pa.,
September i, 1908.

INTRODUCTION
The repeal of the Missouri Compromise in 1854
stands conspicuous as a turning point of the Amer
ican slavery controversy. It put an end forever to
the long series of accommodations between the terri
torial claims of slavery and freedom. In the presi
dential campaign of 1852 both parties had endorsed
as final the adjustment made two years before, and
had condemned all attempts to reopen the slavery
question. Within the halls of Congress and with
out, acquiescence in the finality of the Compromise
of 1850 had become the test of political orthodoxy
for Whigs and for Democrats alike.
Such was the artificial equilibrium when the
33d Congress convened in December, 1853. Within
a month the slumbering agitation had flamed forth
anew. An apparently innocent bill to organize a
territorial government west of the Missouri River
provoked a gigantic and picturesque parliamentary
duel in the Senate Chamber of the United States,
and we who are wise after the fact can see that with
the termination of this last gladiatorial combat in
the arena of Congress the day had passed for peace
ful adjustments and for compromises based upon
mutual good faith. The, estrangement of the sec-

1 6 introduction
tions was irreconcilable. The appeal to arms was
the only and inevitable means of ending forever the
irrepressible conflict.
During the four months' debate while the Kan
sas-Nebraska bill was pending in Congress,^ the in
terest of the nation was focused upon the proceed
ings of that body. Polemical writers, taken un
awares by the sudden revival of the slavery dispute,
immediately set at work explaining legislative occur
rences and imputing motives on the basis of what
appeared in the Congressional Globe. Historians
have generally followed them, and are practically
unanimous in assigning the authorship of the Repeal
to Hon. Stephen A. Douglas ; but they offer a variety
of suggestions as to his purposes and motives in pre
cipitating a new agitation of the slavery question.
According to Schouler,^ the Repeal was the re
sult of a plot in which Douglas appears as the arch-
conspirator, seeking purely selfish ends through ob
sequious pandering to an insatiable Slave Power.
Von Hoist's explanation covers several pages, but
is fairly well summarized in these sentences:
"The drawing of the slavery question into the bill for the
organization of the Territory of Nebraska, which was so complete
a surprise, was originally intended .... to be only a tactical
manoeuvre. Douglas wished to avert the injury which threat-
IThe bill first passed the Senate, March 4, 1854. It passed the House
in an amended form. May 23; on the twenty-fifth, the Senate concurred
in the House amendments. President Pierce signed the act, May 30. Cong.
Globe, xxviii, Pt. i, 532; Pt. ii, 1254, i32i- The Act may be found,
printed in full, in U. S. Statutes at Large, x, 277 ff. ; Cong. Globe, xxviii,
Pt. iii, 2225 ff.; Poore's Charters and Constitutions, i, 569 ff.
2 Schouler's Hist, of the U. S., v, 280, 290.

introduction 17
ened his party because of the attitude assumed by the President
toward the Softs of New York." ^
Woodrow Wilson speaks of Douglas's "strong,
coarse-grained, unsensitive nature, his western au
dacity, his love of leading, and leading boldly, in the
direction whither, as it seemed to him, there lay party
strength.'"* Mr. Rhodes, accepting the motive as
signed in the Appeal of the Independent Democrats
in Congress,^ namely, that the dearest interests of the
people were made "the mere hazards of a presiden
tial game," insists that the action of the Illinois Sen
ator was "a bid for Southern support in the next
Democratic Convention." ^
Professor Burgess assigns a more creditable mo
tive and a higher purpose to Mr. Douglas, and his
3 Von Hoist's Constitutional and Political Hist, of the V. S., iv, 350.
This explanation is based upon what purports to have been a statement once
made by Douglas himself:
"He once subsequently in the fall of 1853 confessed 'that his party in
the election of Pierce had consumed all its powder, and that therefore
without a deep-reaching agitation, it would have no more ammunition for
its artillery.'" (Ibid., 315.)
Von Hoist cites Kapp's Geschichte der Sklaverei, 295. But Kapp
himself gives no authority and says merely that such was Douglas's opinion.
The translator of Von Hoist puts Kapp's statement in quotation marks, and
we find Rhodes led to the false conclusion that the words were actually
uttered by Douglas; Rhodes's Hist, of the U. S., i, 430.
^Division and Reunion, 184; History of the American People, iv,
166 ff.
5 Published January 24, 1854; Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt. i, 281.
6 Rhodes's Hist, of the U. S., i, 429-430. Prof. T. C. Smith, obviously
following Rhodes, says:
"Douglas appears to have introduced this singular and startling project
entirely on his own motion, and its purpose seems to have been nothing
more or less than an effort on the part of a presidential candidate to secure
favor in a quarter where he lacked popularity." — Parties and Slavery,
1830-1859, 96.

1 8 introduction
explanation has of late been gaining wide accept

ance.'

"Mr. Douglas was a Western Democrat; that is, he was a
radical Democrat. He had, therefore, an exaggerated notion of
the virtues of the people, and of the importance of local autonomy.
He resented the idea that the sturdy adventurers who accom
plished the first settlement of a Western Territory were not as
fully capable of local self-government, from the very outset, as
the 'effeminate' inhabitants of an Eastern Commonwealth. He
repudiated the notion that they needed any pupilage from the
general government in the management of public affairs. He
was not alone in such views. It is safe to say that the mass of
the people in his section held the same views at that time 
Is it not, then, fair to say that Mr. Douglas, in all probability,
really believed that the reference of the questions in regard to
slavery to the residents of each Territory, as well as to those of
each 'State', was the true principle of the political science of the
Republic, and the true policy of its legislation? If his convictions
and his ambition went hand in hand, and if his convictions were
not the product of his ambition, should he be so harshly criticised
for declaring them? It is true that his announcement of thera
filled the land with clamor and angry dispute, and that their adop
tion by Congress led to violence, bloodshed, and war; but can we
conclude that he had any conception whatsoever that this could be
the result of them? Is it not far more probable that he thought
the quiet of the country would be confirmed and forever estab
lished by their general acceptance? There is certainly ground for
this view of his motives. It is certainly very improbable that there
was ever any balancing, in his mind, of risks to his country's
peace and safety against his ambition for the presidency. It is
much more probable that he believed his principles without his
presidency, would contribute, in a high degree, to the peace and
welfare of his country, but that, taken together with his presi-
"> The Middle Period, 385. See also an article on "Douglas and
Popular Sovereignty" by Professor Allen Johnson, in lovia Journal of His
tory and Politics, for January and July, 1905.

introduction 19
dency, they would shed untold blessings upon the land. This is
no unusual psychology. It is decidedly common."
The standard explanations just quoted are for
several reasons thoroughly unsatisfactory.* They
are merely conjectural. And they derive no great
support from Mr. Douglas's own assertion that he
had been pressing the Nebraska bill upon the at
tention of Congress for "eight long years," ^ for this
assertion is untrue. Although Mr. Douglas had
been chairman of the Senate Committee on Terri
tories throughout this period, the records of Con
gress fail to show the introduction by him of any
bill looking toward the territorial organization of
Nebraska after December, 1848, until he reported
the Kansas-Nebraska bill in January, 1854: for more
than four years he was wholly silent upon the sub
ject. These conjectural explanations may serve to
show why Senator Douglas, if called upon in Jan
uary, 1854, to choose between the settlement of the
question of slavery in Nebraska upon the principle
of popular sovereignty, entailing the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise, and the further delay in the
establishment of a territorial government, might
8 Messrs. J. Amos Barrett and A. E. Sheldon, of the Nebraska Histor
ical Society, are the authors of perhaps the most recent and novel explana
tion of Mr. Douglas's motives. This appeared in the Omaha Bee, June
5, 1904. The argument is based upon very weak premises, and will be
considered at some length in the Appendix to this volume. The best and
most recent biography of Mr. Douglas, by Professor Allen Johnson, gives
no satisfactory explanation.
' Cong. Globe, xxvi, 1117. See also Douglas's speech at Chicago, Nov.
% 1854, and Cutts's Constitutional and Party Questions, 87. Professor
Johnson accepts this statement at its face value.

20 introduction
favor the Repeal. But they do not indicate that any
such alternative was presented to Mr. Douglas. In
the circumstances under which the Nebraska bill,
after passing the House, failed in the Senate in the
last crowded days of the session, in March, 1853,
there was nothing to require the insertion of the re
pealing clause in order to make the measure accept
able to the next Congress. Mr, Douglas himself de
clared that he knew there was a majority in its
favor.i" Let it be remembered also that no motive of
political self-preservation could have led Mr. Doug
las to originate the Repeal in 1854. His seat in the
Senate was perfectly secure, threatened by no rival,
actual or prospective. He had been reelected in
1852 without opposition, and of his new term only
nine months had elapsed before the opening of the
Congress which enacted the Kansas-Nebraska bill.
Unless some such alternative were presented to
him, it is highly improbable that Mr. Douglas would
have raised the question himself; for, furthermore,
he had eulogized the adjustment made in 1820, as
a compromise "canonized in the hearts of the Amer
ican people, as a sacred thing which no ruthless hand
would ever be reckless enough to disturb." " On at
least three different occasions within a decade he had
brought forward and advocated the extension of the
10 March 3, 1853; Cong. Globe, xxvi, 1117.
11 October 23, 1849, in a speech at Springfield, 111. Quoted in Von
Hoist's Const, and Pol. Hist. U. S., iv, 334 n. i. ; by Jehu Baker in a speech
at Belleville, 111., October 18, 1854, reported in the Weekly Democratic
Press (Chicago), November 11, 1854; and by Cullom, Cong. Globe, xxix,
539-

introduction 21
Missouri Compromise line as a means of settling the
question of slavery in the new Territories.^^ He had
even announced in 1851 his resolute determination
"never to make another speech on the slavery ques
tion" and had added the "hope that the necessity for
it will never exist." ^^
Under thesecircumstances, Mr. Douglas's cham
pionship of the Repeal inevitably gave rise to charges
of infidelity to his party's platform recognizing the
finality of the settlement of 1850, and of gross per
sonal inconsistency. Such charges Mr. Douglas
must have foreseen; and a politician of his prom
inence and shrewdness, entertaining presidential as
pirations, would not gratuitously have provoked
them. The charge of inconsistency, to be sure, he
subsequently sought to parry by asserting that the
Compromise of 1850 had established a precedent, a
new principle, for the settlement of the question of
slavery in new Territories; and that it had "super
seded" or was "inconsistent with" the Compromise of
1820. But this explanation seems to have been an
afterthought. In short, Mr. Douglas was thoroughly com
mitted to the Missouri Compromise, he was not par
ticularly interested in Nebraska, and he was subject
in 1853 to no political necessity originating in his own
position which could have forced him to adopt a

12 In 1845, in connection with the resolutions for the annexation of
Texas; in 1846, as a substitute for the Wilmot Proviso; in 1848, when the
Oregon bill was under consideration; Cong. Globe, xviii, 1062. See Doug
las's speech, December 23, 1851, in Cong. Globe, xxv, 67 ; and his speech at
Chicago, November 9, 1854.
13 December 33, 1851 ; Cong. Globe, xxv, 67.

22 introduction
course so manifestly dangerous and which in its out
come wrecked his career.
On the other hand, there was a member of the
Senate who belonged to the radical wing of the
Democratic party and had long regarded the Mis
souri Compromise restriction as unconstitutional.
His senatorial existence was in jeopardy and for his
political salvation the repeal of the Compromise in
1854 seemed absolutely essential. On more than one
occasion, he afterwards lay claim to the honor, as he
regarded it, of originating the Repeal.
Senator David R. Atchison of Missouri stands
a rival claimant for consideration as the real author
of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
In a speech at Atchison, in Kansas Territory, a
few months after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska
bill," Senator Atchison asserted that at the opening
of the 33d Congress, he had desired the chairmanship
of the Committee on Territories in order to introduce
a bill for a territorial government in Nebraska which
should repeal the Missouri Compromise. With this
object in view "he had a private interview with Mr.
Douglas and informed him of what he desired."
"Judge Douglas requested twenty-four hours to con
sider the matter," offering to resign the chairman
ship "if at the expiration of that time he could not
introduce such a bill" as Mr. Atchison proposed.
"At the expiration of the given time Senator Douglas
signified his intention to report such a bill as had
been spoken of." Senator Atchison is reported to
14 September 20, 1854; reported in New York Tribune, October 10,
1854, and June 4, 1855.

introduction 23
have used emphatic language when asserting his
claim on this occasion: "Gentlemen, you make a
d — d fuss about Douglas, but Douglas don't deserve
the credit of this Nebraska bill. I told Douglas to
introduce it. I originated it. I got Pierce com
mitted to it, and all the glory belongs to me." His
torians have disparaged this claim because it was
made when Mr. Atchison was "under the influence
of the invisible spirit of wine."
There is no evidence, however, that Mr. At
chison was intoxicated when he recurred to the
same subject at Platte City, Missouri, in February,
1856.^' Referring to speeches made by him "all over
the State" in 1853 in which he had pledged himself
to vote for a bill establishing a territorial govern
ment in Nebraska on the one condition that the Mis
souri Compromise was repealed, telling the people
that "unless that restriction was repealed" he "would
see them damned" before he would support such a
bill, Mr. Atchison said, "Well, it was done. I do
not say that I did it, but I ivas a prominent agentP
Some time after the publication of Mr. Atchi
son's claims Senator Douglas characterized the re
ports of Atchison's remarks as a "stale abolition
libel," ^^ and the issue of veracity thus raised between
Mr. Douglas and Mr. Atchison historians have sum
marily adjudged in favor of Mr. Douglas on the
ground that the claims of Mr. Atchison were made
during a state of intoxication. This is entirely un-
15 New York Times, February 25, 1856.
16 April 14, 1856; Cong. Globe, ist Sess., 34th Cong., App. 390 ff. See
Appendix E.

24 introduction
satisfactory because while the fact of intoxication
may impair the force of Atchison's claims, it does not
warrant their total rejection.
The issue thus raised and the inadequacy of the
standard explanations justify an attempt to explain
the origin of the Repeal by looking away from the
pages of the Congressional Globe, and studying the
political conditions existing in the State of Mis
souri.^' To advance a new explanation, resulting
from such a study, of the circumstances under which
the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was con
ceived; and to explain how the Repeal happened to
occur early in 1854 when the country had been lulled
into apparent quietude after the tumultuous agitation
threatening the integrity of the Union, constitute
the main purpose of this book. Closely connected
with this, there is a problem of secondary impor
tance, namely, the question who originated the sug
gestion of the Repeal.

17 The possibility of a western or Missouri origin of the Repeal has
not escaped such leading historians as Rhodes and Von Hoist but its signif
icance is not appreciated; Rhodes's Hist, of the U. S., i, 431, 440; Von
Hoist's Const, and Pol. Hist. U. S., iv, 285 ff.

CHAPTER I
Missouri Politics, 1844-1852-Bentons Retirement from the Sen
ate-The Jackson Resolutions-Benton's "Appeal."
For a decade prior to the repeal of the Mis
souri Compromise, the Democratic party in Missouri
had been rent with internal dissensions. These were
but one manifestation of a cleavage running through
the Democratic party in the Southern States during
these years, separating into one faction the radical,
secessionist followers of Mr. Calhoun, and into the
other, the conservative elements opposed to disunion
tendencies.^* In no State, however, was the war be
tween these factions characterized by a greater bit
terness of feeling and violence of utterance than in
the State of Missouri. There the disciples of Mr.
Calhoun found leaders in David R. Atchison and
James S. Green. In the opposing faction no one
equalled in prominence and influence Calhoun's bit
ter political and personal enemy. Colonel Thomas
18 The fight of 1849-51 "in which Benton was overthrown was merely
the Missouri extension of the conflict between the Calhoun and the Jackson
elements of the Democracy which raged through most of the slave States,
but which was particularly fierce in the border tier, in which the Jack-
sonians had been largely in the preponderance in the beginning." — Good-
speed, Weston Arthur, Editor-in-Chief, Provinces and States; A History
of the Province of Louisiana under France and Spain, and of the Territories
and States formed therefrom, iv, io8. Hereafter cited as Goodspeed.

28 THE REPEAL OF
H. Benton. Chiefly to the peculiar characteristics
of Colonel Benton is to be attributed the extraordi
nary fierceness of the conflict in Missouri.
Both Mr. Atchison and Colonel Benton were
members of the 33d Congress: Atchison, in the
Senate ; Benton, in the House. Atchison had never
played a prominent part in national politics. Ben
ton had been conspicuously before the public for a
generation. He was a statesman of the old school;
personally ostentatious and overbearing, respected
and honored, but never loved. Atchison, a younger
man, was a politician of the new school ; swaggering
and coarse, but magnetic, skilful in intrigue, and a
masterful manipulator of men. The name of one is
writ large in the annals of the country: the name of
the other has come down to posterity as that of a
"Border Ruffian."
In 1853-54 the factional war in Missouri was at
its height. Colonel Benton, after thirty years in the
Senate, had been defeated for reelection in 1850 by
a combination of radical Democrats and Whigs.
Almost immediately he had been elected to the
House of Representatives where he sat during the
debate on the Kansas-Nebraska bill. He ardently
desired to return to the Senate in March, 1855, as the
successor of Mr.' Atchison. Mr. Atchison desired to
be his own successor. The final stage of the contest
for the senatorial succession began as early as the
spring of 1853, When the Missouri Compromise
was repealed the next year. Colonel Benton was
struggling desperately to restore his waning political
power in the State, and Senator Atchison was no less

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 29
Strenuously endeavoring to bring about his own re
election to the Senate. The political ambition and
success of one inevitably involved the political de
struction of the other. Quarter was neither asked
nor given. From the State of Missouri, the scene
of its birth, this titanic struggle was transferred to
Washington and there, in the arena of national pol
itics, it led to the proposal to repeal the Missouri
Compromise. For a clear understanding of the way in which a
senatorial contest in a single State could produce
such stupendous national consequences as were
wrought by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise,
it becomes necessary to examine in some detail the
political conditions existing in Missouri in the decade
preceding the Repeal. By untangling the confused
and complex issues then before the people of that
State we shall set the Repeal in a new and true light.
It will signally illustrate the way in which State
political issues have been transformed, more fre
quently than is generally realized, into national is
sues. It will show that a correct understanding of
national issues may require a thorough study of local
conditions. The story of Senator Benton's retirement from
the Senate begins with his attitude toward Mr. Cal
houn and the policies for which Mr. Calhoun stood,^'
especially with his opposition to the plans of the ag
gressive and radical pro-slavery element in the Mis-

19 Goodspeed, iv, 84; Niles's Register, Ixvi, 444.

30 THE REPEAL OF
souri Democracy which derived its principles from
the great Nullifier.^"
Since the time when Colonel Benton had de
fended and supported President Jackson in his policy
toward Nullification in South Carolina, Mr. Cal
houn and Senator Benton had been personal and
political enemies.^^ With his characteristically fear
less and energetic opposition, the latter had been con
spicuously instrumental in defeating Mr. Calhoun's
scheme for the "immediate" annexation of Texas by
the treaty signed the twelfth of April, 1844, and re
jected by the Senate on the twelfth of June in the
same year.^^

20 In assigning the causes which led to Benton's retirement one must
not overlook those repellent personal characteristics which no doubt played
a considerable part in his political overthrow. These, taken with his long
residence in Washington which removed him from close and sympathetic
contact with the younger generation of Missourians and from a first-hand
knowledge of actual conditions in Missouri, probably had a great deal to
do in undermining his power and in strengthening the arm of his enemies.
A brief but excellent statement of these peculiarities of Benton is to be
found in Rogers's Life of Thomas Hart Benton, 228, 283, 297, 312-313,' 315,
318; hereafter cited as Rogers's Benton.
21 "I am mortified to dwell upon Mr. Calhoun  He has been
instigating attacks upon me for twenty years — ever since I stood by
Jackson and the Union in the first war of nullification. His Duff Green
Telegraph commenced upon me at the same time that it did upon Jackson,
and for the same cause — because we stood by the Union." — Benton's
speech, Jefferson City, Mo., May 26, 1849. Niles's Register, Ixxv, 390 ff.
"He [Benton] says I instigated attacks on him for twenty years. I
instigate attacks on him! He must have a very exalted opinion of him
self. I never thought of such a thing. We move in different spheres.
My course is, and has been, to have nothing to do with him. I never
wanted his support, nor dreaded his opposition." — Calhoun's Reply men
tioned in note 45.
22 Benton's Thirty Years' Fieia, ii, 581 ff. See also Benton's Jefferson
City speech. May 26, 1849; Stephens's The JVar betiaeen the States, ii, 242;
Calhoun's "Correspondence" in American Historical Association's Report,
1899, ii, 633, 635, 636, 658.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 31
In retaliation, an active organization of the
friends of Mr. Calhoun and the "immediate" annex
ation of Texas appeared in the State of Missouri
when the time came round late in 1844 for Mr. Ben
ton's fifth election. This movement had the support,
so Colonel Benton claimed, of "every Calhoun man
and every Calhoun newspaper in the State and in the
United States." ^^ Instructions alleged to have been
inspired by Mr. Calhoun were sent to hundreds of
newspapers over the country, intended for their
guidance in the presidential and state elections and
especially to defeat Mr. Benton's own election.
These instructions advised and urged attacks upon
Benton by showing that he had allied himself with
the Whigs on the Texas question. "Quote," said the
instructions, "Jackson's letter on Texas, ^^ where he de
nounces all those as traitors to the country who op
pose the treaty. Apply it to Benton. Proclaim that
Benton, by attacking Mr. Tyler and his friends, and
driving them from the party, is aiding the election
of Mr. Clay; and charge him with doing this to
defeat Mr. Polk, and insure himself the succession
in 1848; and claim that full justice be done the acts
and motives of John Tyler by the leaders. Harp

23 "In the year 1844, as it will be remembered, when my fifth election
was coming round, there was an organization against me in the State,
supported by every Calhoun man, and every Calhoun newspaper in the
State, and in the United States. There was a coincidence in their opera
tions which showed that they worked by a pattern. I knew at the time
where it all came from; and the source has since been authentically revealed
to me  " Benton's Jefferson City speech.
24 Letter of Andrew Jackson to William B. Lewis, January 28, 1844,
in N. Y. Public Library Bulletin, iv, 308.

32 THE REPEAL OF
upon these strings." " So far as Missouri was con
cerned it appears that these instructions were obeyed
to the letter.^*
This effort of Mr. Calhoun and his friends to
discredit Colonel Benton by emphasizing his oppo
sition to the annexation of Texas was probably the
strongest move which could have been made at that
time to undermine Benton's political supremacy in
Missouri. An overwhelming majority of the people
of that State ardently favored the acquisition of
Texas.^^ The Legislature which met in December,
1844, had adopted a memorial to Congress urging
the annexation of Texas at the "earliest practicable
moment." ^^

25 Quoted in Benton's Jefferson City speech.
26 "How well the instructions were obeyed was seen in this State, and
in other States, and in all the presses and politicians which followed the
lead of 'our leading friend at the South' Benton — Clay — Whigs —
Texas. Harp upon these strings, and harp they did until the strings were
worn out ; and then the harps were hung upon the willows.'' — Benton's
Jefferson City speech.
27 "The State of Missouri is more deeply interested in the annexation
of Texas than any other State;" Benton's remarks in the Senate, in pre
senting this memorial, January 20, 1845; Cong. Globe, xiv, 154-155. See
also Benton's Vie'w, ii, 615; Carr's Missouri, 193-199; Calhoun's "Corres
pondence," 633, 635, 636, 658, 954, 969, 1197, 1199. The people of Missouri
were "for speedy annexation regardless of the smiles or frown of foreign
nations;" letter of Andrew Jackson to B. F. Butler, May 14, 1844, printed in
Am. Hist. Rev., xi, 833. See also Niles's Register, Ixvii, 42 (September
21, 1844), quoting the Richmond Whig; Goodspeed, iv, ch. 9.
Senator Atchison, then serving his first term in the Senate, warmly
supported Mr. Calhoun's annexation scheme; Niles's Register, Ixxii, 278,
quoting the Missouri Republican.
28 Before the adoption of this memorial, the friends of Mr. Calhoun
tried to amend it so as to urge "immediate" annexation, but in this they
failed. As a rejoinder to this attempt, the following resolutions, inspired
by Colonel Benton and very well indicating his feeling toward Mr. Calhoun

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 33
Despite these assaults upon his position respect
ing Texas, Colonel Benton was triumphantly re
elected to the Senate in January, 1845; and at the
beginning of his fifth term he was without any ques
tion the most powerful man in Missouri politics.
Prior to 1844 it had been supposed to be "political
death for any man even to whisper a breath against
'Old Bullion,' the idol of Missouri." ^^ The attacks
upon him which appear in the campaign of that year
had been inspired by parties outside the State. One
effect seems to have been the encouragement of radi
cal pro-slavery men and the enemies of Benton with
in the State to unite and form a more perfect organi-
at this time, were offered as a substitute for the memorial finally adopted:
"i. [Resolved] That in the opinion of this General Assembly, the
treaty of the twelfth day of April, 1844, for the annexation of Texas to
the United States was an intrigue for the Presidency, and a contrivance
to get the southern States out of the Union, instead of getting Texas
states into it, and was among the most unscrupulous intrigues which any
country ever saw — and nullified the choice of the people, and the rights
of the people, and the principles of our Government.
"2. [Resolved] That the ratification of the treaty for the annexation
of Texas to the United States would have been an adoption of the Texas
war with Mexico by the United States, and would devolve its conduct
and conclusion on the United States.
"3. [Resolved] That the treaty-making power does not extend to
the power of making war, and the President and Senate have no right
to make war either by declaration or adoption.
"4. [Resolved] That the war with Mexico, in which the United
States were in danger of being involved by the President of the United
States and the Secretary of State, would have been unconstitutional, per
fidious, clandestine, and piratical."
These resolutions were voted down; indeed it seems probable that the
author had no expectation of their passage. They may be found in Niles's
Register, Ixvii, 278 (January 4, 1845).
29 From a statement by Judge William C. Price, an influential oppo
nent of Benton, reported to me by William E. Connelley, Esq., of Topeka,
Kansas. See also Meigs's Life of Thomas Hart Benton, 405 ff. ; hereafter
cited as Meigs's Benton.

34 THE REPEAL OF
zation — an organization having for one of its main
purposes the overthrow of Senator Benton as the
controlling factor in Missouri politics.^" In addi
tion to the ardent supporters of Mr. Calhoun, Ben
ton's enemies comprised all those who for one reason
or another had become restive and discontented under
the political absolutism which he had exercised for
more than twenty years.^^
Perhaps no individual at the beginning of the
war upon Benton was more active and influential in
uniting into a highly efficient political machine all
those elements in the Missouri Democracy which
were hostile, or inclined to be hostile, to Senator
Benton than Judge William C. Price, a cousin of
Sterling Price, the Confederate General. It appears
that Judge Price was in close and constant communi
cation with Mr. Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, John C.
Breckinridge, Robert Toombs and Judah P. Benja
min ; and that upon the subject of slavery he was a
radical of the radicals. He was a man of an in
tensely religious nature, and a firm believer in the
righteousness of slavery. The perpetuation and ex-
30 The following statement was reduced to writing by Roland Hughes,
Esq., of Kansas City, Mo., and given to Mr. Connelley, to whom I am
indebted for it. "General David R. Atchison told me, in a conversation
at his house, under the shade of an oak tree in his front yard, about three
years before his death [which occurred in 1886] these words, 'Claiborne
F. Jackson, Trusten Polk, William C. Price and I, entered into a con
spiracy to defeat and destroy Benton. We succeeded in defeating Benton,
but by God, it retired Dave Atchison from public life.'" Unfortunately
the statement gives no date for the formation of this "conspiracy,'' but
there is good reason for thinking that it must have been in 1844 or 1845.
See Goodspeed, iv, 84.
31 On Benton's political absolutism, see Meigs's Benton, 403 ff.,
especially 408-409.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 35
tension of the "peculiar institution" he sincerely be
lieved to be indispensable to the welfare of Missouri
and of the South. Missouri, he was convinced,
could not long remain a slave State with Iowa free
on the north, Illinois free on the east, and a free
State on the west. Missouri must therefore con
trive in some way to remove the Missouri Compro
mise prohibition, the chief obstacle to the westward
extension of slavery. With the zeal of a fanatic,
tempered by sound political discretion, Judge Price
visited all parts of the State of Missouri, urging
upon politicians the special interest which the slave
holders of the State had in bringing about in the
near future the abrogation of the old Compromise
inhibition. He even went so far, some time in the
year 1844, as to suggest that abrogation to Senator
Benton. Instantly and in his characteristically
brusque manner, Colonel Benton spurned and re
pudiated the suggestion.
Chiefly because of his opposition to Mr. Cal
houn's annexation treaty, but also because he refused
to endorse the suggested repeal of the Compromise,
Senator Benton was, from the year 1844, marked for
political annihilation by the aggressive leaders of the
South, and by the radical slavery extension faction
in the Missouri Democracy. Up to this time he
and Price had been warm friends. They never
spoke afterwards. Judge Price registered a vow to
drive Benton from public life: in the presence of
a large company gathered in a store on St. Louis
street in Springfield, Missouri, he vowed he would
fight Benton to the death. To make it more open

36 THE REPEAL OF
and public, he wrote his determination on the walls
of the store where it remained until the building was
torn down after the Civil War.^^
There is a lamentable lack of evidence disclos
ing the actual tactics employed by the Missouri
radicals in the next three or four years. The lack
may be explained in part by the necessity, dictated
by practical political considerations, of proceeding
with silence or secrecy until a strong organization
could be effected. So long as Benton's prestige in
the State remained unimpaired, so long as the fed
eral patronage falling to the State was largely under
his control, so long did he constitute the chief ob
stacle to the realization of the schemes of Mr. Cal
houn's friends in Missouri. To have heralded with
the blare of trumpets their various moves to compass
the ultimate overthrow of Benton might have been
to do the historian a great service, but obviously it
would have stamped the conspirators as the most in
experienced of politicians.
Nevertheless the controversy could not be kept
32 Judge Price always maintained that the idea or suggestion of the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise originated with him. Whether or not
this is so it is perhaps impossible, in the nature of the case, to determine.
His work was doubtless important in creating a sentiment in western
Missouri favorable to such a project, but this is to be carefully distin
guished from the steps which actually accomplished the Repeal in 1854.
I have found no evidence which directly connects Judge Price with the
origin of the Repeal via the Kansas-Nebraska bill.
To Mr. Connelley I am indebted for the facts given in the last two
paragraphs in the text. Mr. Connelley was related by marriage to Judge
Price, and was personally well acquainted with him. There is a brief
biographical sketch of Judge Price in Mr. Connelley's The Provisional
Government of Nebraska Territory, 28 ; this work is hereafter cited as
Connelley's Prov. Gov. See also Appendix B.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 37
wholly out of sight. Two sets of resolutions, intro
duced into the Legislature which met in December,
1846, one pro-Benton and the other anti-Benton,
show how it was developing. The following resolu
tions were approved by the Governor, February
IS, 1847:^^
"Resolved, by the State of Missouri as follows:
"i. That the peace, permanency, and welfare of our nation
depend upon the strict adherence to the letter and spirit of the
8th section of the Act of the Congress of the United States,
entitled 'an Act to authorize the people of Missouri Territory to
form a constitution and State government, and for the admission
of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original
States, and to prohibit slavery in certain territories, approved
March 6, 1820.'
"2. That our Senators in the Congress of the United States
are hereby instructed and our Representatives requested, to vote
in accordance with the provisions and spirit of the said 8th section
of said Act in all questions which may come before them in relation
to the organization of new Territories or States out of the territory
now belonging to the United States or which may hereafter be
acquired by purchase, treaty or by conquest.
"3. That a copy of these resolutions should be forwarded by
the Secretary of State to each of our Senators and Representatives
in Congress of the United States."
The introduction of these resolutions appears to
have been taken as a challenge by the pro-slavery
33 Laivs of Missouri, 1846-47, 367. These resolutions are quoted
in a speech by Oliver of Missouri in the House of Representatives, May 17,
1854, Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt. ii, 1209, and ibid., xxxi, 726; also in Benton's
speech, April 25, 1854, ibid., xxviii, Pt. ii, 986, and ibid., xxxi, 557, and in
his Jefferson City speech. May 26, 1849. The resolutions were presented to
the House by Willard P. Hall, of Missouri, and to the Senate by Mr.
Atchison, on Dec. 21, 1847, and Jan. 31, 1848, respectively; House Journal,
ist Sess., 30th Cong., 138, Senate Journal, 141. See also Switzler's
Missouri, 269, and the Jefferson Inquirer, Dec. 17, 1853.

38 THE REPEAL OF
faction, for at the same session of the General As
sembly, Claiborne F. Jackson, a prominent radical,
introduced counter resolutions designed to "instruct
Benton out of the Senate." ^* So strong, however,
was the majority of Benton men in the Legislature
that Jackson was unable to carry his resolutions even
through the Senate where he introduced them. But
the opponents of Benton coalesced so rapidly with
the pro-slavery elements in Missouri, that by the
time the next General Assembly met in December,
1848, they had voting strength sufficient to bring
about the adoption of the "Jackson Resolutions" of
which the most important are the following: ^^
34 "Xo accomplish his [Benton's] political destruction they contrived to
have passed through the general assembly of Missouri during the winter
of 1848-49 the celebrated Jackson resolutions, instructing him how to vote
on the great question of that day then pending in the Senate resolutions
of Mr. Calhoun. They knew that he would not obey them, because, first,
of the disunion doctrine contained in them, and, second, of personal resent
ment at the audacity of attempting to instruct Benton on such a subject."
J. H. Birch, quoted by Hon. A. M. Dockery of Missouri in Cong. Record,
3d Sess., 55th Cong., Pt. iii, 1463.
35 The first two resolutions were as follows:
"Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri:
"i. That the Federal Constitution was the result of a compromise
between the conflicting interests of the States which formed it, and in no
part of that instrument is to be found any delegation of power to Con
gress to legislate upon the subject of slavery, except some special pro
visions having in view the prospective abolition of the African slave trade,
made for the securing the recovery of fugitive slaves ; any attempt, there
fore, on the part of Congress to legislate on this subject, so as to affect
the institution of slavery in the States, in the District of Columbia or in
the Territories, is, to say the least, a violation of the principles upon which
that instrument was founded.
"2. That the Territories acquired by the blood and treasure of the
whole nation, ought to be governed for the common benefit of the people
of all the States, and any organization of the Territorial governments,
excluding the citizens of any part of the Union from removing to such
Territories with their property, would be an exercise of power, by Congress,

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 39
[Resolved] "3. That this General Assembly regard the
conduct of the Northern States on the subject of slavery as
releasing the slaveholding States from all further adherence to
the basis of Compromise fixed on by the Act of Congress of March
6, 1 820 ; even if such Act ever did impose any obligation upon the
slaveholding States, and authorizes them to insist upon their rights
under the Constitution; but for the sake of harmony and for the
preservation of our Federal Union, they will still sanction the
application of the principles of the Missouri Compromise to the
recent territorial acquisitions, if by such concession future aggres
sions upon the equal rights of the States may be arrested and the
spirit of anti-slavery fanaticism be extinguished.
"4. The right to prohibit slavery in any Territory, belongs
exclusively to the people thereof, and can only be exercised by
them in forming their Constitution for a State Government, or
in their sovereign capacity as an independent State.
"5. That in the event of the passage of any Act of Con
gress conflicting with the principles herein expressed, Missouri will
be found in hearty cooperation with the slaveholding States, in
such measures as may be deemed necessary for our mutual pro
tection against the encroachments of Northern fanaticism.
"6. That our Senators in Congress be instructed and our
Representatives be requested to act in conformity with the fore
going resolutions." ^^
The first appearance of the "Jackson Resolu
tions" ^' in the Legislature was marked by Colonel
inconsistent with the spirit upon which our federal compact was based,
insulting to the sovereignty and dignity of the States thus affected, cal
culated to alienate one portion of the Union from another, and tending
ultimately to disunion."
A supplementary resolution was adopted instructing the Secretary
of State to transmit a copy of the Resolutions "to each of our Senators
and Representatives in Congress and to the Executive of each of the several
States with the request that the same be laid before each of their respect
ive Legislatures." 36 These resolutions are given in full in Laws of Missouri, 1848-49,
667, in Switzler's Missouri, 265-266, and in Cong. Globe, xxi, Pt. i, 97-98,
ibid., xxxi, 726, Carr's Missouri, 223 ff., and Meigs's Benton, 409-410.
37 Meigs, in his Life of Benton, denominates these resolutions the

40 THE REPEAL OF
Benton and their origin was known to him. But
though well aware that the friends of Mr. Calhoun
had been in a "perpetual state of incubation," since
the failure of their plot in 1844, he decided to let
the new plot which they were hatching "quit its
shell." The legislators generally he did not hold
responsible for the Jackson Resolutions. "I do not
believe," he declared, "there exceeded half a dozen
members in the two Houses, all told, who had the
scienter of their origin and design, or meant harm
to the country or myself." He was confident, there
fore, that a hint from himself "would have stopped
the whole proceeding." But that would have done
him no good: "it would only have postponed and
changed the form of the work." Accordingly he
said nothing to "alarm the operators," and wrote not
a word on the subject — "not a word to any of the
three hundred members who would have blown the

"Napton-Jackson Resolutions.'' In the newspapers of the period they are
constantly and almost uniformly called the "Jackson Resolutions." They
were introduced into the Missouri Senate Jan. i, 1849, by Carty Wells,
a Democrat, and were referred to the Committee on Federal Relations of
which Claiborne F. Jackson was chairman. As chairman of this Com
mittee, Jackson reported the resolutions in the form in which they passed,
and hence the name, Jackson Resolutions. The resolutions were ap
proved, March 10, 1849. The final vote in the House on their adoption
stood, 53 to 27: all but four of the negative votes were cast by Whigs;
Switzler's Missouri, 265-266. See also Davis and Durrie's Missouri, 141,
Paxton's Annals of Platte County, no (hereafter cited as Paxton's Annals) ;
Jefferson Inquirer, June 11 and Aug. 20, 1853; Missouri House Journal,
1848-40, Appendix, 219 ff. The real author of the Resolutions appears
to have been Judge W. B. Napton; Meigs's Benton, 410, Goodspeed, iv, 103
ff., and Benton's speech at Fayette, Mo., Sept. i, 1849.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 41
resolutions sky-high if they had known their origin
and design." ^^
Had it not been for Colonel Benton's very dif
ferent and extraordinary course in relation to these
Resolutions at a subsequent date, no more significance
might have attached to them than to similar res
olutions aimed against the Wilmot Proviso and
passed about the same time by the Legislatures of
Texas, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, and North Car
olina.^' But on the ninth day of May, 1849, Colonel
Benton issued his famous "Appeal" to the people of
Missouri from the legislative instructions contained
in the Jackson Resolutions."" "If they confirm the .
instructions," said Benton, "I shall give them an op
portunity to find a Senator to carry their will into
effect, as I cannot do anything to dissolve this Union,
or to array one-half of it against the other." "I do
not admit the dissolution of the Union," he continued,
"to be a remedy to be prescribed by statesmen for
the diseases of the body politic any more than I ad
mit death, or suicide to be a remedy for the diseases
of the natural body. Cure and not kill, is the only
remedy which my mind can contemplate in either
38 The phrases quoted in this paragraph are from Benton's Jefferson
City speech.
39 These resolutions may be found in the Lavas of the State of Texas,
1848-49, 93 ff. ; Lavss of the General Assembly of Maryland, 1849-50,
Resolution No. 37; Acts of the State of Georgia, 1849-50, 405 ff.; Acts
of the General Assembly of Virginia, 1848-49, 257 ff.; ibid., 1849-50, 233
ff.; Laws of North Carolina, 1848-49, 237 ff.
40 The "Appeal" took the form of a letter addressed to "The People
of Missouri." It may be found in the Western Eagle (Cape Girardeau,
Mo.), May 11, 1849, copied from the St. Louis Union; also in Niles's
Register, Ixxv, 332 (May 23, 1849).

42 THE REPEAL OF
case  I appeal from these instructions to the
people of Missouri — to the whole body of the people
— and in due [time] will give my reasons for doing
so  I shall abide the decision of the whole peo
ple and nothing less."
The "due time" soon arrived. On the twenty-
sixth of May, 1849, in a speech of great length, de
livered in the hall of the House of Representatives at
Jefferson City, Senator Benton denounced the Jack
son Resolutions in the most unsparing terms, declar
ing that they were aimed at himself and the stability
of the Union, and reiterated his appeal from the
Legislature to the people."*^
In the Jackson Resolutions he affected to discern
the hand of his old enemy. The burden of his ar
gument was their substantial identity with the reso
lutions introduced into the Senate of the United
States by Mr. Calhoun on the nineteenth day of Feb
ruary, 1847. If this identity could be established,
Mr. Calhoun's well-known hostility to Senator Ben
ton, his doubtful loyalty to the Union, and the dis
credit cast upon his resolutions in the Senate would
materially assist Senator Benton in the difficult task
of justifying, before a constituency which cherished
the right of instruction as something sacred, his for
mal appeal from the instructions of the General As
sembly.
41 This Jefferson City speech may be found in a bound volume of
pamphlets in the library of the Missouri Historical Society, St. Louis; in
pamphlet form in the library of the Wisconsin Historical Society; also in
Niles's Register, Ixxv, 390 ff. "The whole conception, concoction and passage
of the resolutions was done upon conspiracy, perfected by fraud. It was a'
plot to get me out of the Senate and out of the way of the disunion
plotters." — Benton's speech at Fayette, September i, 1849.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 43
The Jackson Resolutions, Benton declared, were
"a mere copy of the Calhoun resolutions offered in
the Senate" and denounced by him at the time "as
a fire-brand, intended for electioneering and dis
union purposes." *^ The Calhoun resolutions were
the "prototype" of those of the Missouri Legislature.
He could (or would) see no difference in them "but
in the time contemplated for the dissolution of the
Union, Mr. Calhoun's tending 'directly,' and those
of Missouri, 'ultimately' to that point. In other
respects they are identical." The Calhoun resolu
tions were "the parent" of the Jackson Resolutions.
"When the original is invalidated, the copy is of no
avail  He [Mr. Calhoun] is the head mover
and contriver." Not only was the authorship of both
sets of resolutions identical, but the purpose of each
was the same, namely, "to deny the right of Congress
to prevent or prohibit slavery in territories and to
denounce a dissolution of the Union if it did. One
was parent to the other, and I presume no man will
deny it." ^^ The real design in the Resolutions, Ben
ton asserted at another point in his speech, was to
constitute "a pledge of the State to back Mr. Cal-
42 Benton had also denounced these Calhoun resolutions in a speech
delivered at a dinner given in his honor in St. Louis early in June, 1847.
Niles's Register, Ixxii, 222-223, quoting the St. Louis Republican. See Mr.
Calhoun's Reply io Col. Benton mentioned in note 45.
43 To this last sweeping assertion, "truth and justice" compelled Benton
to make an exception: "I have no idea that the mass of members who
voted for the Resolutions in the last General Assembly had any idea that
they were Calhoun's or considered the dissolution of the Union, which
they announce, as a thing in actual contemplation. But they are not the
less injurious on that account. They are the Act of the General Assembly,
and stand for the act of the State, and bind it to the car of Mr. Calhoun,
and encourage him more than any other event that has taken place  "

44 THE REPEAL OF
houn in his designs to put the State under his lead,"
and to stop Benton's "opposition to his mad career:"
to understand the Jackson Resolutions and "to see
their design, you must know" Calhoun's."* The
greater part of the speech thus takes the form of a
violent attack upon Mr. Calhoun."^
44 At another point in this speech Benton said: the Jackson Resolu
tions "were copied from Mr. Calhoun; and to see their design you must
know his. His were aimed at the Union .... and at the members from
the slaveholding States who would not follow his lead — myself especially."
The italics are mine. See Mr. Calhoun's Reply to Col. Benton mentioned
in note 45.
45 On June 23, 1849, Calhoun wrote to Andrew Pickens Calhoun:
". . . . You see that Benton has openly deserted and that he pours out
his venom against me. [Referring to the Jefferson City speech.] I am
averse to touching him, and, if his aim had been against me exclusively,
I would not notice him. But such is not the fact. He strikes at the South
and its cause through me ; and I have concluded to repel his attack against
myself, to the extent that it is necessary to repel it against the South.
His whole speech is a mass of false statements, illogical conclusions and
contradictions. I expect to appear in the Messenger, in the number suc
ceeding the next. Neither he [n]or his cause will gain anything by the
attack  " Calhoun's "Correspondence'' in Am. Hist. Assn. Report,
1899, ii, 768-769.
Calhoun's Reply to Benton, mentioned in the letter just quoted, first
appeared in the Pendleton Messenger, July 14, 1849, and was copied into
the Charleston Courier, July 17, 1849, where it fills over seven columns.
It is also to be found in the Library of Congress in a pamphlet entitled,
Mr. Calhoun's Reply to Col. Benton (n. p., n. d.).
The Reply is addressed "To the People of the Southern States." Mr.
Calhoun says that the main purpose of the Reply was to repel "all the
charges intended to shake your confidence in my fidelity to you, in refer
ence to the most vital of all subjects to the South;" and to demonstrate
that "they all rest either on statements that are utterly false; or con
clusions that are entirely erroneous or inconclusive  All that
was directed against me personally, and not intended to impeach my
fidelity to you and your cause" is passed over. "I have also passed over
the torrent of abuse he poured out against me .... because I deem it
beneath my notice."
The Reply contributes nothing to the history of the Jackson Resolutions
or the course of Missouri politics, and is therefore of slight value in this

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 45
In order to cast still further discredit upon the
Jackson Resolutions, Colonel Benton pointed to cir
cumstances connected with their passage through the
Legislature which seriously impaired their force as
"instructions :"

connection. The opening paragraphs, indicating Calhoun's contemptuous
opinion of Benton, may be quoted here:
"Several reasons would have prevented me from taking any notice of
Col. Benton, if his attack in his late speech, delivered in the Capitol
of Missouri, had been directed exclusively against me. The line of con
duct I have prescribed to myself, in reference to him, is to have as little
to do with him as possible; and, I accordingly, never notice what comes
from him, even in his character as Senator, when I can avoid doing so
consistently with my public duties. I regard him in a light very different
from what he seems to regard me, if we may judge from the frequency
and violence of his attacks on me. He seems to think I stand in his way,
and that I am ever engaged in some scheme to put him down. I, on the
contrary, have never for a moment thought of raising him to the level
of a competitor, or rival, nor considered it of any importance to me
whether he should be put down or not. He must think he has something
to gain by assailing me; I, on the contrary, feel I have nothing to gain
by noticing him, and when compelled to do so, am satisfied if I escape
without some loss of self-respect. I have another reason for not desiring
to notice him on the present occasion. All his charges against me, with
few and trifling exceptions, are but the reiterations of those often made
heretofore by himself and others, and which I have met and successfully
repelled in my place in the Senate or community, there can be no better
proof, than is afforded in the laborious and tiresome effort he made in
his present speech to revive and give them circulation.
"Under the influence of these reasons, I would have remained silent
had I alone been concerned. But such is not the case. His blow is aimed
much more at you than me. He strikes at me for the double purpose
of weakening me in your confidence, and of striking at you and your cause
through me, which he thinks can be done more effectually indirectly, than
directly. Thus regarding his attack, I feel it to be a duty I owe you and
your cause to repel it."
Commenting upon Calhoun's reply, the Western Eagle (Whig) said:
'The issue is fully made up between these two distinguished Democratic
rivals; and as the burden of proof rests with Benton, he must sustain his
charges or be considered a slanderer." (Aug. 3, 1849.)

46 THE REPEAL OF
"The Resolutions were introduced at the very beginning of
the session; they lay torpid until its end. The plotters were
awaiting the signal, from the 'leading friend' — waiting the Cal
houn address. The moment they got it, they acted, although it
was too late for the Resolutions to have the effect of instructions.
They were passed after Congress had adjourned, and after it
must have been believed that the subject to which they relate had
been disposed of; for it was notorious that the territorial govern
ment bills were in process of enactment, and in fact only failed
after midnight on the last night of the session, and that on dis
agreement between the two Houses; and their failure, on the 3rd
of March, was not known at Jefferson on the 7th — the day of
passing the Resolutions. It was too late to pass the Resolutions
for the purpose of instructing me how to vote at Washington.
It was too late for that; but was early enough for the summer
campaign at home; and therefore they were passed."
Then with all the energy he could summon,
Benton hurled his anathema at the plotters:
"Between them and me, henceforth and forever, a high wall,
and a deep ditch! and no communion, no compromise, no caucus
with them  Woe to the judges, if any such there are in
this work! The children of Israel could not stand the govern
ment of Judges; nor can we  "46
Having demonstrated his main proposition that
the Missouri Resolutions were copied from those of
Mr. Calhoun and that "the subversion of the Union
is intended," Senator Benton declared in closing:
"In the execution of this design I cannot be an instrument,
nor can I believe that the people, or the mass of the General
Assembly wish it ; and I deem it right to have a full understanding
with my constituents on the whole matter.
"I therefore appeal from the instructions I have received,
46 The last sentence was probably directed against Judge Price, Judge
Napton, Judge James H. Birch, one of the most bitter of Benton's enemies,
and Senator Atchison who, before his election to the Senate, had held a
judgeship.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 47
because they are in conflict with instructions already received and
obeyed ^^ — because they did not emanate from any known desire,
or understood will, of the people — because they contain uncon
stitutional expositions of the Constitution which I am sworn to
support — because they require me to promote disunion — because
they are copied from resolutions hatched for great mischief, which
I have a right to oppose, and did oppose in my place as Senator
in the Senate of the United States, and which I cannot cease to
oppose without personal disgrace and official dereliction of public
duty — and because I think it due to the people to give them an
opportunity to consider proceedings so gravely affecting them, and
on which they have not been consulted.
"I appeal to the people — and the whole body of the people.
It is a question above party, and should be kept above it. I mean
to keep it there." 48

47 Referring to the Resolutions passed on the fifteenth of February,
1847, already quoted. "How different — how irreconcilably hostile to each
other — the two sets of resolutions ! One makes the peace, permanency,
and the welfare of our national Union, dependent upon the strict adherence
to the spirit and terms of the Missouri Compromise, in its application to
new territory — that is to say, upon the constitutional right, and the equita
ble exercise of that right, to legislate upon Slavery in the new territory,
and to admit it in part, and prevent it in part; the other makes the dissolu
tion of the Union dependent upon the same platform of fact and principle
— denying the right of Congress to permit or prohibit slavery in a
territory — asserting its prohibition to be a violation of the Constitution of
the United States — an insult to the sovereignty of the States — and tending
to the dissolution of the Union. Sad contradiction this, when the same
remedy is both to cure and to kill ! and although the political doctors may
prescribe both, yet, surely, the political patient who has taken one, has a
right to talk a little with the doctors before he swallows the other."
48 The following occurs in an editorial review of Benton's Jefferson
City speech in the Western Eagle, June •., 1849: "This speech
fully defines Benton's position upon the question of slavery in the terri
tories and those who hesitated to pronounce sentence upon him until they
heard his defence, may now be assured that he is utterly and altogether
in favor of Wilmot's Proviso and contends that Congress has the power
and should exercise it in prohibiting the introduction of slavery into all
of the territory acquired from Mexico. Can Wilmot or any Northern
Barnburner do more? The Colonel, conscious of the indignation he must

48

THE REPEAL OF

This appeal from the legislative instructions
Senator Benton immediately followed up with a can
vass of the State conducted with characteristic energy
and aggressiveness. Over the entire State he went, "'
even invading the western counties where his ene-
encounter from the people of Missouri for deserting their interests at a
crisis when his assistance is most needed, uses much tact and adroitness
in endeavoring to avert the well-merited rebuke which he will receive,
by directing the attention of the people to the course of Mr. Calhoun, the
action of public meetings and several legislatures in the Southern States.
Calhoun appears to be an evil genius that seems to haunt him both by
day and night  Are the people of Missouri so completely bound
hand and foot to the car of Benton, that they will suffer themselves to be
dragged into such doctrines? Are the dominant party of this State, who
have hitherto acknowledged this man to be their leader, so completely
under his control that they are bound to obey all his behests, 'to turn about
and jump about' as he raay command them? The resolutions in to-day's
paper show so far as this part of the State is concerned, 'that the scepter
has departed from Judah,' and the friends of the great Humbug are
becoming few and far between  "
The resolutions mentioned in the last sentence were adopted at a
meeting held at Jackson, Missouri, May 26, 1849, "with regard to the
propriety of agitating the question of Wilmot's Proviso or Barnburnerism
in this county or in this part of the State." The resolutions endorsed the
Jackson legislative Resolutions, and included' the following: "Resolved,
That we receive the appeal of Thomas H. Benton from the Resolutions
of the last Legislature .... with mortification, astonishment, and as
unprecedented: that we believe it the duty of the Representatives to obey
the instructions of their constituents ; and that the Legislature is the only
legitimate organ through which the people of the State can speak to or
communicate with their Senators in the National Legislature. That we
shall postpone any further consideration of said appeal to some further
occasion." "Resolved, That we cordially approve of the course of the Hon. David
R. Atchison on the slavery question, and for his having united in the
spirited and patriotic appeal of the convention of Southern members of
Congress to their constituents — eloquently warning them against abolition
encroachments, and defending their inalienable constitutional rights."
One resolution invited Benton to visit that section of the State and
defend or explain his appeal, an invitation which he accepted on Nov. 7,
1849. For the comment of the St. Louis Union, a staunch Benton organ,
upon Benton's speech, see the Western Eagle, June 8, 1849.
49 The itinerary of Senator Benton on this canvass, so far as I have

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 49
mies were most numerous and most desperate. Ben
ton's speeches on this tour were substantial repeti
tions of the Jefferson City speech. His opinions
were expressed in language most unrestrained. On
at least one occasion his vehement personal denun
ciation of a supporter of the Jackson Resolutions in
the audience threatened serious disorder.^" As the
canvass progressed Benton's utterances became more
and more bitter and polemical. There lurked in
the Jackson Resolutions, he reiterated, "the spirit of
nullification," of "insubordination to law," and of
"treason." " Again and again he denounced them
as "entertaining the covert purpose of disrupting the
been able to discover it, was as follows: on June 9 he spoke at Columbia;
June 16, at Liberty; June 18, at Platte City; July 16, at Liberty; August
9, at St. Joseph; Sept. 1, at Fayette; October 17, at St. Louis; November 5,
at Ste. Genevieve ; November 6, at Perryville ; and November 7, at Jackson.
50 At Platte City, June 18, 1849. William M. Paxton, Esq., was present
and thus describes what took place: "In his circuit of the State, Benton
appeared at Platte City. A stand had been erected  The town was
full of people opposed to Benton. At the stand there were only two or three
hundred. Representative Wilkerson, who had voted for the resolutions, took
a prominent place immediately in front of the speaker. I was reclining
on the grass in the rear, conversing with Col. J. W. Reid, who had just
returned from the Mexican War. Suddenly Benton's voice rose to its
highest pitch, and Col. Reid instantly sprang to his feet and dashed to the
stand. I followed and found him standing at Benton's side, with two
revolvers in hand, and two more at his sides. Wilkerson having pro
nounced some statement of Benton's a 'lie,' the latter was pouring bitter
denunciation on the treasonable Legislature, and pointing the finger of
scorn and the voice of imprecation upon the pale and crouching form of
Wilkerson. Benton was severe in his denunciation of Judge Birch, and
brought charges for which a suit of slander was instituted, but which
never came to trial." — Paxton's Annals, 117. See also Benton's speech at
Fayette, Sept. i, 1849.
51 "The Resolutions, taken altogether, are false in their facts, incen
diary in their temper, disunion in their object, nullification in their essence,
high treason in their remedy, and usurpation in their character  "
Benton at Fayette, Sept. i, 1849.

50 THE REPEAL OF
national Union and of misleading the people of Mis
souri into cooperation with the slaveholding States
for that purpose." Not content with condemning
the Resolutions themselves, Benton assailed their au
thors with the bitterest diatribe and most vehement
invective, mingled and interspersed liberally with
profanity; in all of which arts of the western stump
orator Benton was past master. These speeches, cir
culated in pamphlet form, "set the State ablaze" as
had no other event in its history." From this time
until after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill
in 1854, the Jackson Resolutions and Benton's "Ap
peal" constituted the platforms or rallying points of
the radical and conservative Democrats in Missouri
respectively who henceforth are usually denominated
Bentonites and anti-Bentonites. "
52 Switzler's Missouri, 269 ; Carr's Missouri, 225 ff. ; Meigs's Benton,
413. For a good example of Benton's style, see the closing remarks of his
Fayette speech. Of his speech at St. Louis on Oct. 17, the Western Eagle
said (Oct. 26, 1849) : "The speech of Col. Benton at St. Louis lately was
of that coarse, bitter and denunciatory character which has exhibited itself
in all his speeches throughout the State. His abuse of J. C. Calhoun and
his denunciation of all those opposed to him, show plainly that his equa
nimity has been disturbed. The dignity of the Senator has been thrown
aside, and the tyrannical, bullying disposition of the man has fairly
developed itself  "
53 On Aug. 20, 1853, when the fight between Benton and Atchison was
at its height, the following appeared in an editorial of the Jefferson In
quirer: " . . . . The original cause of the division in this State was
the passing of the so-called Jackson Resolutions and the sale of Col. Benton
out of the Senate of the United States  The Jackson nullifying
resolutions were gotten up for this purpose [ousting Benton] and every
Democrat who would not join in the crusade against Missouri's beloved
Statesman, was denounced as a freesoil traitor, etc  We have our
terms of compromise and shall adhere to them until they are complied with.
. . . These terms are: the reelection of Col. Benton to the Senate of
the United States, from which he was sold by a few traitors in the Dem
ocratic party, and the repeal of the Jackson nullifying resolutions." The
italics are mine.

CHAPTER II
Missouri Politics, 1844-1852 (continued)-] ames S. Green's Re
ply to Benton's "Appeal" -Benton's Election to the House in
1852.
In public addresses and letters, men of great
ability denied the soundness of Benton's views, de
nounced his course in refusing to obey the instructions
of the Legislature, and justified their own. Among
these public and outspoken critics '* of Benton, none
were more conspicuous than David R. Atchison and
James S. Green. Atchison was Benton's colleague
in the Senate, having been reelected for the full
term by the General Assembly which had passed
the Jackson Resolutions. Green was a brilliant

54 As early as the first of July, 1849, the following Democratic news
papers, and perhaps others, were actively opposed to Benton: the Metro
politan, at Jefferson City; the Platte Argus, at Platte City; the Missouri
Courier, the Southern Standard, the Fayette Democrat, the Howard
County Banner, the Northeastern Reporter, the Louisiana (Mo.) Banner,
and Grand River Chronicle. The principal papers supporting Benton were
the St. Louis Union, and the Jefferson Inquirer. The Whig press was
on the whole anti-Benton. In this connection see the Western Eagle, July
6, 1849. Both Benton and Judge Birch (anti) spoke at Liberty, July 16, 1849.
Resolutions were adopted declaring in substance that Benton was bound
in honor to himself and duty to the State either to obey the instructions of
the Legislature or to resign. The resolutions also declared implicit con
fidence in the ability, integrity and correct principles of Senator Atchison. —
The Western Eagle, July 27, 1849.
I have been able to discover very little definite information concern
ing the activities of the anti-Benton leaders in this campaign.

52 THE REPEAL OF
young lawyer of St. Louis, a member of the House of
Representatives, and destined, in 1857, to succeed
Atchison in the Senate of the United States. Both
Atchison and Green wrote letters designed for pub
lication in which they set forth at great length their
position upon the issues raised by the Resolutions
and Benton's appeal. Mr. Green wrote probably
the ablest reply to Benton and made the most adroit
attack of the campaign upon Benton's attitude to
ward the subject of Slavery."
Green's letter,^* dated Washington, D. C, De-
55 Respecting the importance of Green in the war against Benton,
James G. Blaine said: "Green had done more than any other man in
Missouri to break the power of Thomas H. Benton as a leader of the
Democracy. His arraignment of Benton before the people of Missouri in
1849, when he was but thirty-two years of age, was one of the most
aggressive and successful warfares in our political annals." — Twenty Years
of Congress, i, 273. I have been able to discover very little evidence
other than the letter mentioned above which justifies this high estimate of
Green's efforts against Benton.
I have also been unable to discover a copy of the letter which Atchison
wrote. Its existence is mentioned, and a paragraph from it is quoted
by the Jefferson Inquirer, May 21, 1853. The following, occuring in the
Western Eagle, may be an allusion to this letter:
"The Hon. David R. Atchison, U. S. Senator from this State, has pub
lished a reply to certain resolutions adopted at a meeting held in Platte
City, June 4th, 1849, in which he defends his course in acting last winter
with the Southern members of Congress in signing the address which
they adopted; he also fully coincides with the Jackson Resolutions adopted
by the Legislature at its last session and promises implicit obedience
to the instructions which they contain  His position [upon
the Wilmot Proviso] is exactly opposite to that of Benton  " July
6, 1849. "He [Atchison] was the only Senator from Missouri during Benton's
service who dared set himself up in opposition to Benton. In the division
of the Democratic party in Missouri which came soon after the Mexican
War, Atchison led the pro-slavery and pro-Southern element as against
the old Jacksonian and Unionist ingredient which had Benton for a
chieftain." — Goodspeed, iv, 82.
^^ Letter of James S. Green of Missouri to Messrs. John S. Parish,

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 53
cember 10, 1849, opens with a discussion and em
phatic endorsement of the right of State Legislatures
to instruct Senators in Congress. Benton's course
in refusing obedience, amounting to "a practical
abandonment of the doctrine of instruction," " is
then taken up for the purpose of discrediting the
Senator in the eyes of the Missouri Democracy.
The writer then endeavors to show that the Jackson
Resolutions, literally interpreted, imposed no obli
gations with which a person holding Colonel Ben
ton's views of the power of Congress over slavery in
the Territories could not consistently comply. '*
John W. Minor, Thomas Roberts, Wesley Burks, and others, citizens of
Schuyler County, Mo. A copy of this letter in pamphlet form is in the
possession of the Missouri Historical Society, St Louis.
57 "Colonel Benton's appeal, and present course, amount to a practical
abandonment of the doctrine of instruction; and for that reason, if for no
other, I could not approbate his conduct. True, he does not in so many
words deny the right of the Legislature to instruct the Senators; but while
he admits this, he does that which, for all practical purposes, renders the
right of instruction of no effect. By his 'appeal' he designs to overreach
and supersede the expressed will of the legislative authority. He substi
tutes what he may choose to consider the sentiments of tumultuous crowds,
for the declared will of the people, as expressed through their only con
stitutional organ. And in his strange proceedings he constitutes himself
not only the appellant, and advocate, but also the judge in his own case,
and we therefore may expect him to decide according to his own inclination.
. . . ." Green's Letter.
58 "And it is worthy of notice that our resolutions of instruction do not
require of Colonel Benton any vote, or any act, which can conflict with
his declared opinions of the Constitution on the subject of slavery. They
simply instruct him to vote for the extension of the Missouri Compromise
line to the Pacific Ocean, if thereby this difficult controversy can be settled ;
or, if that cannot be done, then to vote against any other interference with
the subject. He claims full constitutional power to legislate as Congress
may please over the subject of slavery in the Territories; and surely to
obey the instructions, and vote against all interference, unless the Missouri
Compromise can be obtained, cannot involve a violation of the Constitution,
according to his own construction of that instrument. The Senator is not

54 THE REPEAL OF
Benton's charge that the Resolutions were forced
through the Legislature by fraud and deception is
next taken up," and then Mr. Green proceeds to
impeach Senator Benton's "soundness" upon the slav
ery issue, and especially with reference to the Wil
mot Proviso. This is the most significant part of
called upon to mould his opinions in conformity to the language of the
instructions; but he is required to do the acts commanded. The acts re
quired by our resolutions are all of a negative character except the exten
sion of the Compromise line, and to that Colonel Benton pretends to take
no exception. Voting in the negative — voting against the Wilmot Proviso,
and voting against all bills interfering with slavery, cannot violate the
Constitution; and that is precisely what the Senator is commanded to do.
No reason, therefore, can be found to exonerate him from .strict obedience
of the legislative instructions."
59 "But as an excuse for disregarding the instructions, it is said they
passed by fraud, after being concocted by a band of conspirators, whose
motives were base, selfish, and personal.
"This has been repeated so often, and with so much boldness and
effrontery, that many good men have been led to believe in it, although,
for myself, I have not seen or heard the first particle of evidence tending
in any degree to sustain the charge. To me, it looks like adding insult
to injury. Not content with trampling on the authority of the State, the
next step is to tarnish her reputation. The charge, however, is but a
pretext — an unsupported, flimsy pretext, designed to deceive the people,
and thereby mitigate, if not conceal, the offence of disobedience. They
were passed on the seventh of March, last, and intended to control the
Senators at the subsequent sessions of Congress ; just like the instructions
for the railroad, and many others which have passed since the organization
of our Government. And whether they were conceived by one man or
another; whether they were written by one member, or a dozen others
in conjunction with him, are questions wholly irrelevant and immaterial.
When they were written and laid before the two Houses of the General
Assembly, they were seen, examined, and approved, by a large majority of
each House, and passed in strict conformity to the letter and spirit of the
Constitution. Then they became the act of the Legislature, and so they
will ever remain, though subject to repeal by a subsequent act equally
solemn. And at this moment of time, notwithstanding all that has been
said against them, a majority of the members yet approve them, and, if
now in session, would reenact them to-day; and this fact disproves the
charge that they were passed by fraud and deception upon the mem
bers. ..."

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 55
the letter. "Our Resolutions of instruction," wrote
Green, "seem to have been drawn with the special
intention to condemn the Wilmot Proviso,^'' and all
measures of a kindred nature." Senator Benton's
opposition to these Resolutions has induced the writ
er to believe that Benton is "really in favor of that
fanatical and treacherous measure." "His recent
speeches and conduct afford strong corroborative evi
dence of the same fact." *^ Continuing in this line of
attack, Green goes on to say:
"On questions so vital, so momentous as this, it is certainly
important that the people should know precisely, without doubt
or ambiguity, the opinions of their public servants. How else
can they expect to be faithfully and truly represented? Colonel
Benton has been asked frequently by his constituents for his opin
ions on the subject, and he has never answered any one so as to
make himself understood; nor would he give them the least satis
faction. He replied, '/ make no pledges — / give no bonds'^ and
in no instance would he answer whether he was for or against Free
Soilism. Now, I believe from the facts above given, together
with various others, that he is as much a Free Soiler as David
Wilmot; but yet there are many good and worthy citizens of
our State who think he is against Free Soilism, and would aban
don him in an instant if they believed he would favor that odious
and dangerous scheme. To my certain knowledge some of his
friends consider him committed for the Proviso, and others con
sider him against it. One or the other of these must be deceived
— one or the other must be disappointed. In such case, neither

60 The italics are mine.
61 Numerous passages from Benton's speeches are then cited in support
of this statement, after which Mr. Green launched into a long argument
against the Proviso.
Beginning with the campaign of 1849, •* will be observed that the
assaults upon Benton are concentrated upon his position toward the Proviso,
as in 1844 they had been directed against his position upon the Texas
question.

56 THE REPEAL OF
one should rep6se any confidence in the man, who knowingly and
wilfully practices such duplicity and double-dealing as must even
tuate in the disappointment of one or both; and no man can tell
but that he himself may be the sufferer  " *^
The letter closed with a brief allusion to public
sentiment in Missouri toward the Wilmot Proviso,
and to the character of the canvass conducted by
Colonel Benton during the preceding summer and
autumn :
"The sentiments here advanced are such as I have long
entertained, and have repeatedly declared to my constituents dur
ing the last summer and fall, in compliance with the requests
of those to whom I am responsible for my political action.
Throughout the district I have found the citizens nearly unani
mous in favor of the same opinions — all, or nearly all, being
opposed to the proviso, and in favor of non-interference, leaving
the question of slavery unaffected by Congressional action, which
is the only national doctrine upon which all sections of the Union
may unite, and settle, to the satisfaction of all concerned, this
unfortunate controversy. I am aware that some of my friends
thought my language last fall savored too much of hostility to
Colonel Benton. It may have seemed so to one not acquainted
with the circumstances demanding it; but a full knowledge of
these will at least extenuate, if not completely justify me for every
word I uttered. Not a single disrespectful term was applied by
me to Colonel Benton, until his hostility had provoked it in self-
defense. But when he threatened to 'crush' me, and 'grind me to

62 The following is taken from an anonymous pamphlet entitled, A
Statement of Facts and a Few Suggestions in Review of Political Action
in Missouri, published in 1856, and found in bound volume of pamphlets
belonging to the Missouri Historical Society: "Instead of yielding obedi
ence to those instructions. Colonel Benton denounced them in the most un
sparing terms, and commenced, in the year 1849, the organization of a
separate faction in Missouri, taking as its shibboleth, that Congress had a
right to pass the Wilmot Proviso, and exclude slavery from the Territories.
He made many speeches in different parts of the State, and published many
letters, urging all who agreed with him to aid, in his own language, in

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 57
dust' and otherwise outraged my feelings without just cause, in
the excitement naturally produced I departed from my usual
conduct, and in acrimonious retort indulged in language which
may have been too harsh and improper. In no instance, however,
did I go further than the example he had given me  "
That the campaign of 1849 in Missouri was not
only one of extraordinary interest and excitement
but also exceedingly acrimonious appears more clear
ly from a letter written by Adam Klippel," a strong
Benton sympathizer, to Hon. Salmon P. Chase while
the canvass was at its height. The letter was dated
St. Joseph, Missouri, September 14, 1849, and in
it occurs the following brief but vivid and circum
stantial account of the agitation and acrimony at
tending this remarkable campaign:
"Dear Sir: You are no doubt aware of the excitement and
. agitation in Missouri on the slavery question, and the extraor
dinary exertions now going on to defeat Col. Benton's reelection

'building a high wall and digging a deep ditch, socially and politically,'
between them and the Democracy of the State. That separate organization
under his championship, had for its most efficient leaders those of his con
fidential friends who, in 1848, had inaugurated in Missouri a Van Buren
and Adams movement against Cass and Butler. That movement proved an
utter failure. Colonel Benton was not directly identified with it. Still, as
his course from 1844, and his failure to denounce or attempt to repress
that scheme, left it uncertain to what extent his confidential friends, who
were engaged in it, had acted under his sanction, the doubts and distrusts
as to his fidelity, which had largely prevailed before, became then so
greatly increased, that many who had, up to that period, clung with un
yielding confidence to him, began to entertain serious misgivings as to his
political faith  " This pamphlet is hereafter cited as Rev. Pol.
Action. 63 At the time of writing this letter, Klippel was a printer. Later
he became a clergyman in the Methodist Episcopal Church, and an editor.
In i860 he took the stump with Carl Schurz in Missouri in behalf of
Lincoln.— -"Diary and Correspondence of S. P. Chase," in Am. Hist. Assn.,
Report, 1902, ii, 470, citing U. S. Biographical Dictionary (Missouri vol
ume). For the letter quoted in the text, see ibid., 470 ff.

58 THE REPEAL OF
to the Senate  Believe me, sir, the excitement prevalent
in this State at this moment, is fully equal to a Presidential cam
paign, such as we have seen in Ohio last summer and fall. Every
where Benton's appeal, his course, slavery in the territories,
abolitionism, &c., &c., are discussed and talked over most lively.
And Mr. Benton is travelling over the State making speeches to
the people, and at every place he goes immense numbers are
present to hear. Mr. Benton spoke in this town on the 9th of
August, to a very large concourse of people — about 1 500 per
sons  I was afraid Mr. Benton would commit a blunder,
as his mind was very much excited. A little previous to making
his speech, he was arrested for slander. Judge James H. Birch —
who .... is following Benton wherever he goes, making opposi
tion speeches — was the man that sued Benton, for accusing the
Judge of whipping his wife. ^4
"Judge Birch spoke here last Saturday (Sept. 8) together
with our own Representative in Congress — Willard P. Hall,
the latter taking only a milder ground of opposition to Mr. Ben
ton. Every disguise, as to the intention of these men towards
Benton, is done away. They openly declare that they 'are deter
mined to put down Benton !' All the judges, more or less, in
Missouri are out against Benton: and Mr. Benton in return
comes down upon them in no unqualified terms — calling them
nulHfiers, disunionists, &c. I am sorry Mr. Benton indulges so
much in profanity. It looks certainly very bad, especially so in a
Statesman. He curses the judges personally, and everybody else
that disagrees with him. Yet in this respect his opponents —
Atchison and all his followers, the judges — are not a whit be
hind. Nine out of twenty-two democratic papers in the State,
it appears, are out against Benton, and are unbounded in villify-
ing him, and such epithets as 'traitor,' 'Apostate,' 'Scoundrel,'
'Barnburner,' 'Abolitionist,' 'Free Soiler,' are continually heaped
upon him unsparingly. At the head of these stands the Jefferson
City 'Metropolitan' — a miserable sheet  I am afraid
Benton will be defeated. The people of Missouri, however, so far
as I have been able to see will sustain Col. Benton. But notwith-

64 See note on a preceding page, quoting Paxton's Annals, 117.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 59
standing this, I am afraid — very much afraid — our General As
sembly will drop Benton, ^5 and send in his place another such a
dough-head and Slavery-Propagandist as General Atchison, who
is also now canvassing the State against Benton  " ^^
The effect of Benton's appeal and the canvass
which ensued, was, in the words of another contem
porary, to "stir popular feeling from its profoundest
depth." ^"^ Benton's appeal assumed the character of
a test. Upon it and upon the Jackson Resolutions,
including the subject of slavery in the Territories, it
"became obligatory for every one to give an opinion
who was a solicitor for public favor." ** Political
friends "completely separated" upon the Resolutions,
and were "widely diversified in sentiment about their
construction." *' Democratic candidates for Con
gress found it necessary to write circular letters to
65 Calhoun wrote to Thomas G. Clemson, Aug. 24, 1849: ". . . .
Benton and Clay are both playing for the North. I enclose in pamphlet
form my notice of his assault on me  It is, so far as I have heard,
regarded as triumphant. It is said, that he will not be able to sustain
himself in Missouri. His colleague. Gen. Atchison, says he has no chance
to be reelected." — Calhoun's "Correspondence" in Am. Hist. Assn., Re
port, 1899, ii, 771.
In the same month Calhoun wrote to A. W. Venable: "I hear from
Missouri, that Benton's days are numbered. Atcheson and Green say, that
he has as good a chance to be made Pope, as to be elected Senator." — Ibid.,
770; also, ibid., 1204. See also the Western Eagle, Jan. 11 and June
21, 1850. 661 have not been able to learn the itinerary of either Atchison or
Birch. Atchison spoke in St. Joseph the latter part of September and
in Jackson in the same month probably. See the Western Eagle, Aug.
31, 1849. 67 Col. William F. Switzler of Columbia, Mo.
68 Circular of Mr. James S. Bowlin to his Constituents, the Voters of
the First Congressional District in Missouri (1850) ; a pamphlet belonging
to the Missouri Historical Society.
69 Ibid.

6o THE REPEAL OF
their constituents in which they carefully defined
their position upon the burning issues of the day.
"These resolutions," wrote one candidate for Con
gress,''" "have been so much discussed, so critically
reviewed, so wildly denounced, and so warmly eulo
gized, that it becomes almost impossible to divest
the mind of the over-heightened colorings that have
been thrown around them, and subject them to a
calm, philosophic review." ^^
This political ferment was not confined to the
ranks of the Democratic party: it affected the Whigs
also. Their attitude throughout the campaign of
1 849- 1 850 is well described by Colonel Switzler,
himself a contemporary Whig: ^^
"The Whigs, at all times a minority in the State, claimed
to occupy a position of 'armed neutrality' touching the distracting
questions which threatened the unity and power, if not the very
existence of their Democratic opponents. It is not to be denied,
however, that quite naturally, they sought to foment, the pre
vailing discord, and in reference to the Jackson Resolutions them
selves, sympathized with Colonel Benton. ^^ Their representa-

70 Mr. Bowlin, ibid. Mr. Bowlin at first tried to maintain a neutral
attitude, but was soon forced to take sides, and then came out against
Benton. 71 There is an echo of this storm and stress period in the pro
ceedings of Congress which met in December, 1849, in connection with
the presentation of the Jackson Resolutions in the Senate by Mr. Atchison
on the third of January, 1850; Cong. Globe, xxi, Pt. i, 98; Senate Journal,
ist Sess., 31st Cong., 48. Benton's remarks on this occasion are reproduced
in another connection in Thirty Years' View, ii, 361-362. The Resolutions
were presented to the House by Mr. Green, Dec. 31, 1849; House
Journal, ist Sess., 31st Cong., 203.
72 History of Missouri, 272.
73 This may be true in general, but there were numerous exceptions.
For example, the Western Eagle endorsed the substance of the Resolutions,
but repudiated the idea of nullification or secession. The Whigs naturally

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 6 1
tives in both branches of the General Assembly had opposed them
by speech and vote at the time of their adoption, and for similar
reasons to those afterwards presented by Colonel Benton in his
warfare upon them." By the time it became necessary to elect
a successor to Benton in 1850, "the Whigs themselves were to
some extent divided into Benton and anti-Benton Whigs, desig
nations which attached to the one segment or the other according
to the intensity of its pro-slavery or anti-slavery sentiments."
Very little evidence has been found which in
dicates clearly what the leaders and lieutenants of
the two great factions in the Missouri Democracy
did in the spring and summer of 1850. Apparently
the State's two Senators, Benton and Atchison, were
fully occupied with the absorbing topics then en
grossing the attention not only of Congress but of the
whole country. We read of few speeches in Mis
souri : in fact, few were needed, for the issues had all
been clearly defined during the exciting contest of
the year preceding.
In August were to be elected members of the

availed themselves of the disaffection in the Democratic ranks to conduct
a State and Congressional campaign of unusual vigor in 1850. See the
Western Eagle, Aug. 17, 1849, Mar. 29, June 28, July 19, Aug. 2, and Aug.
23, 1850. As early as the first of April, 1850, the possibility of bringing
about the election of a Whig to the Senate was perceived and urged
in the Whig press. See a communication from "A New Madrid Whig" in
the Western Eagle, April 12, 1850.
This Whig organ was particularly severe in its condemnation of
Benton for his neglect to secure appropriations from the Federal Govern
ment for internal improvements within the State of Missouri. Atchison
is similarly criticised. One editorial on this subject was called forth by
the statement of the Washington correspondent of the St. Louis Intelli
gencer to the effect that the act granting alternate sections of land to aid
the Illinois Central Railroad, "may be attributed mainly to the exertions
of Col. Benton, the Missouri Senator." In view of Benton's "total neglect"
of the railroad interests of his own State, the editor regarded Benton's "mag
nanimity" in this direction as "supererogatory." — Issue of May 24, 1850.

62 THE REPEAL OF
General Assembly which would choose a successor
to Senator Benton. That individual, on the whole,
appears to have viewed the situation with far too
great equanimity, apparently overestimating his in
fluence and the strength of his following. Often he
refused in a decidedly cavalier fashion requests from
his constituents to appear before them and speak up
on the issues.^*
Some attempt seems to have been made to heal
the schism caused by the Jackson Resolutions and
Benton's appeal. Overtures were made by the
Antis to the Bentonites looking toward a united
Democratic ticket in the August campaign. This
prospect of reconciliation was swept away by a
spirited letter from Senator Benton, dated Washing
ton City, March 8, 1850: "
"I have had a great many letters from friends in different
parts of the State, in relation to a union with the Calhounites
in the ensuing elections ; such letters are very mortifying to me —
too much so to be answered. I was sounded upon the point last
summer when the articles were going through the Calhoun papers,
for a general convention of the party, as it was called, to meet
and settle all differences. I answered instantly and truly, that
I would sooner sit in council with the six thousand dead, who
have died of cholera in St. Louis, than to go into convention with
such a gang of scamps; and that is my sentiment to-day. There
is but one principle on which the Democrats and the Calhounites
can meet in any election, and that is one which Calhoun said held
the party together, 'the cohesive bond of public plunder.' That
may be true of him and his, but it is not true of me and mine:
74 Rogers's Benton, 313. Benton spoke in St. Louis, Nov. 9, 1850.
This is the only speech of his in the campaign of 1850 of which I have
found a summary.
75 The name of the person to whom this letter was addressed is not
given in the Western Eagle, April 15, 1850, where the letter is printed.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 63
and I will prove it during these elections, by standing clear of
all connections with them. I will not mix with them nor give,
nor take help. Let them have their own ticket and we ours.
Let us have a clean Democratic ticket — no taint of Calhounism,
i.e. secession, disunion, nullification, in it. Let them have their
own ticket, and elect it if they can; or defeat ours if they can.
The point is to defeat them. The public good requires it; the
harmony and the preservation of the Union require it. The Mis
souri elections this year are a turning point in the drama of
disunion. The disunionists count upon Missouri. They believe
they have the State, and that belief emboldens them in the highest
degree; success in one election will confirm that belief. The
election of Calhoun men will confirm it; therefore they must be
defeated and if confined to their own ticket they will be defeated.
City and County, State and Federal, Congressional and all, they
should be put to their own ticket, '* and be made to congregate
by themselves ; we shall be stronger when they are gone ; and what
is more, we shall be clean — no timid or selfish calculations about
losing elections; we may lose some few, but still the great point
will be gained, Calhounites will be put down, and even the election
of Whigs will be a triumph over them — a victory in behalf of
the Union — and that is the overruling consideration at present.
Fear of seeing Whigs elected can have no effect upon me under
present circumstances — not even a fear of seeing a Whig elected
in my own place. I am for the country and for the Union, and
the country and the Union require Calhounism to be extinguished
in Missouri, and I am for the extermination as courageously as
the Calhounites are for dissolution of the Union, 'at all hazards
and without regard to consequences.'
"People ask me here why I do not speak ? I tell them, when
I was at the Bar, I never interrupted my adversary's counsel while
he was proving up my case for me.
"This letter is not for publication, but it is not for conceal
ment. Friends may see it."
When the returns from the August elections
76 This was substantially the course pursued in the campaign of 1850.

64 THE REPEAL OF
were all in, it was evident that the newly elected
Legislature would be divided into three factions,
Bentonites, anti-Bentonites and Whigs, in such a
way that no one faction could command the majority
necessary to effect the election of a Senator."
The General Assembly convened December
30. The caucus of Bentonites sent a message to
the anti-Benton caucus inquiring if they would join
with the Bentonites for the purpose of effecting an
organization of the Legislature. To this message the
Antis replied in a resolution which stated that "when-

77 In commenting upon the result of the August elections, the Western
Eagle (Aug. 9, 1850) said editorially: — ". . . . Freesoilism is prostrate
in Missouri, and for one, we do most heartily rejoice. The reign of Benton
is at an end; and it is a consummation for which we have arduously la
bored and most devoutly wished. The people on Monday last gave him his
quietus, and his odious principles » 'Sadducee burial.' . . . Rejoice, inde-
dependent Democrats for you have overcome a political tyrant! Let the
whoje people of Missouri rejoice, for they have rid themselves of one who
has always been a curse to their prosperity."
The Washington correspondent of the Baltimore Clipper, writing
Aug. 6, 1850, made the suggestion that in view of his recent defeat in the
Missouri elections, Benton "will go to California and seek to be returned
as a Senator from that State." — Quoted in the Western Eagle, Aug.
16, 1850. The interpretation which Benton placed upon the result of the elections
is represented by the Western Eagle (Nov. 15, 1850) in a review of Ben
ton's speech at St. Louis, Nov. 9, 1850 (I have been unable to find the
speech itself): ". . . . The Colonel contends that his appeal from the
resolutions of instruction .... has been sustained by the people and that
he has no farther interest in the contest, than to see execution done on the
condemned resolutions. We will use his own words — 'all my objects
have been accomplished. The people of Missouri were waked up to a
sense of their danger! The whole Union was waked up to the danger of
disunion. My appeal — my six months speaking to the people of Missouri
waked up the State and all the States ! What would have been the condi
tion of the country, if I had not made the stand I did?' Well, who did
kill cock robin? I, says Benton, with my six months speeches!" [delivered
in 1849].

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 65
ever the Benton Democracy shall abandon Colonel
Benton as their candidate for United States Senator
and their support of his 'Appeal' from the instruc
tions of the last General Assembly of Missouri, and
the principles maintained by him relative to the
subject of slavery, then this meeting will with great
pleasure join all Democrats in carrying out the great
fundamental principles of the Democratic party, as
set forth in the Baltimore platform of 1844 and 1848,
provided they recognize the rights of instruction by
the Legislature to their Senators in Congress." ^*
With such terms, amounting to a complete surrender
of their position, the Benton men could not of course
comply." The joint sessions of the two Houses for the pur
pose of electing a Senator began on the tenth of Jan
uary, 1 85 1, and continued to be held from day to day
until the twenty-second. On the eleventh, Mr. Hill,
a member of the House, offered in joint session the
following resolution:
"Resolved, That the one-half of the State of Missouri is
now misrepresented in the person of Thomas H. Benton in the
United States Senate, and that the two Houses, now in joint
session will not adjourn except as may suit their convenience until
a United States Senator who will reflect the true interests of the
State shall have been elected, or until the 5th day of March,
next." 80

78 The Western Eagle, Jan. 3, 1851. Telegraphic accouAts of legis
lative proceedings appeared regularly in this paper beginning with this
issue. 79 See also in this connection Reports of House and Senate Committees
on Federal Relations, in Missouri House Journal, 1850-51, Appendix, 239,
and Missouri Senate Journal, 1850-51, Appendix, 249.
80 Missouri Senate Journal, 1850-51, 88. See also the report of the

66 THE REPEAL OF
The resolution was laid upon the table, but it is
significant of the animus of the anti-Benton mem
bers, and the resolute determination of some to com
pass the defeat of Benton at any price.
"The war of the factions raged furiously,"
writes a contemporary Whig, "each 'wing' of the
Democratic party preferring the success of the
Whigs to the success of the opposing division of their
own party. Finally .... a portion of the line of
each of the opposing forces gave way, and victory
perched upon the banner of the Whigs." ®^ On the
fortieth ballot, Henry S. Geyer, a lawyer of eminent
ability residing in St. Louis, was elected for the term
of six years beginning March 4, 1851. On that
date Thomas H. Benton, after a period of thirty-
years' service, ceased to be a Senator of the United
States. According to the calculation of his enemies,
Benton should have retired from political life after
his defeat ; *^ but they had reckoned without their
House Committee on Federal Relations, in Missouri House Journal, 1850-
51, Appendix, 239 ff.
81 Switzler's Missouri, 273. The break in the Democratic ranks began
about the sixteenth of January, and seems to have come from the anti-
Benton side. On that day the following despatch was sent to the Western
Eagle: "To-day has been the most exciting day of the session. Several
of the anti-Benton members avowed their intention to vote for H. S.
Geyer. Mr. Stewart in particular made a speech expressing his deter
mination to do so. In his remarks he stated that his object was to defeat
Colonel Benton, and he infinitely preferred a Whig of sound sentiments,
like H. S. Geyer, to Benton. He said that if he were compelled to vote
for either Seward or Benton, he would cast his vote for the former, for
he was an avowed Abolitionist, while the latter was an Abolitionist in
disguise — not from principle but from policy." — Issue of Jan. 17, 1851.
82 Statement of Judge William C. Price, reported to me by Mr.
Connelley.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 67
host. A Benton temporarily cast down and a Ben
ton vanquished and destroyed were two entirely dif
ferent things, as they were soon to discover. Benton
immediately set about reorganizing his "bolt" from
the regular Democratic organization in Missouri.^'
When the parties in that State were about tb
prepare for the Congressional, State and Presidential
elections in 1852, the Antis made another effort to
heal the schism which had resulted in the election of
a Whig Senator, and sought to bring together into
one State convention all who still claimed to be Dem
ocrats. But with this Benton would have nothing
to do. Letters were published by him in denuncia
tion of the movement toward factional reconcilia
tion, and his followers were forbidden to participate
in the State Democratic convention which met at
Jefferson City early in the summer of 1852. That
convention, composed mainly of radicals, manifested
a willingness to forget the past, including Benton's
"hostility to the Compromise measures of 1850,"
his disobedience of the legislative instructions, and
his open "bolt" from the Democratic party, "on con
dition that he and his supporters would 'acquiesce' in
the adjustment measures of 1850 and the principles
83 The Washington correspondent of the Louisville (Ky.) Courier
wrote in March, 1851: ". . . . Mr. [F. P.] Blair [Jr.] visited him
[Benton] a day or two since to prevail upon him to announce himself as
a candidate for the Presidency, regardless of all party dictation or nom
ination; assuring him that the country would sustain him if he would do
so. His supplications and entreaties, however, were of no avail, as Benton
vowed that he would give neither sleep to his eyes nor rest to his limbs,
until he had revolutionized Missouri, and his supremacy in that State was
conceded by his reelection to the Senate in the place of Atchison  "
Quoted in the Western Eagle, March 21, 1851.

68 THE REPEAL OF
they established, and in good faith adhere to the
party organization and nominees." *" In less than
two months after the Jefferson City convention, "Col
onel Benton took the stump again in Missouri, de
nounced the Democratic State Convention and its
platform, derided all who adhered to it, and pro
claimed that he would never again support the nom
inees even of a Democratic National Convention." *'
Acting in accordance with Colonel Benton's ad
monitions, "his friends drew off from the Democratic
party in most portions of the State where they had
any strength. In the first Congressional District,
the regular convention nominated as the Democratic
candidate for Congress, Col. Louis V. Bogy; the
Benton men bolted, and Colonel Benton ran as an in
dependent candidate. His example and his advice
were followed generally by his friends : they bolted
from the regular Democratic organization, formed a
new organization and continued to act under it," un
til after the defeat of Benton for reelection to the
Senate in 1854-55.
Colonel Benton's election to the House of Rep
resentatives was merely an episode in his struggle
S'^Rev. Pol. Action, 8. "As an illustration of his [Benton's]
course," the Review continues, "it may be here stated, that on the isth of
May, 1852, he delivered a speech at the town of Jackson, Missouri, unsur
passed in vituperation, in which, after reviling and denouncing the Dem
ocratic State Convention for nearly half an hour, he proceeded thus: 'I
now drop the Jefferson City convention with the declaration that it was
all a fraud and cheat from the beginning ! that it had effected no union
between the two wings of the Democracy! that the Antis (Democrats)
remain (their leaders, I mean) under a distinct organization.' "
85 Ibid.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 69
for reelection to the Senate.** The same fury and
vehemence and vituperation characterized his cam
paign in 1852 that had distinguished his canvass
three years earlier. Throughout the whole of the
tremendous contest for election to the House, from
which he emerged triumphant, "he spared no
public or personal denunciation. He exhausted
every expletive of abuse. He ransacked the entire
range of the English language for terms of scorn and
derision. He spared no character. He wavered in
no contest. He struck at everything and everybody,
fiercely, powerfully, and with a rude grandeur of
gigantic rage and hate. He was an angry Vulcan
forging and launching thunderbolts of hate." *'
86 Though the campaign of 1852 involved issues of more significance
than the personal defeat or triumph of one leader and his faction, the
Jackson Resolutions and the Wilmot Proviso and Benton's opposition to
the Compromise measures of 1850 still lay at the bottom of the factional
war. In a letter to the editor of the Booneville (Mo.) Observer, in June,
1852, Benton said, referring to the Jackson Resolutions: "I gave notice
to the people, in my appeal in 1849 of my intention to get their decision
upon the question of expunging those resolutions from the journals. I now
repeat the notice, with the declaration of my intention to continue the
efforts (and if I remain out of Congress, in a more direct manner) until
it succeeds, or my natural life ceases." Benton, it may be added here,
never succeeded in this second "expunging" struggle. The letter referred
to is quoted in Rev. Pol. Action, 106.
87 Comment of the New Orleans Crescent upon Benton's election to
the House, quoted in Jefferson Inquirer, Aug. 28, 1852. Preceding the
passage quoted above, occurs the following comment: "In the history
of American politics we have just realized an extraordinary occurrence.
A man who but yesterday was driven from the council hall of the nation, in
which it was his boast that he stood for thirty years a Senator, returns
again into his legislative labors, and returns under circumstances of the
most extraordinary and triumphant character. He is elected by a Dem
ocratic slave-holding constituency and elected by a remarkably large popular
vote when his theoretical opinions and senatorial votes have notoriously
made him obnoxious to the entire slave-holding section of the Union. He

70 THE REPEAL OF
Long after Colonel Benton's election to the
House, the war of the factions continued. In Au
gust, 1852, a special session of the Legislature was
called to consider the subject of Internal Improve
ments, a subject in which there was deep and wide
spread interest in Missouri during this period.
Great, however, "as was the particular interest every
where felt in the early completion" of the railroads
within the State, "nothing could obscure the camp-
fires of the political factions, or smooth the ragged
edge of their conflicts. Fresh from the turbulence
of the State canvass, which had closed on the first
Monday of the month, the Senators and Representa
tives of the people, supplemented by a large and
active lobby, assembled at the Capitol, and at the
very threshold confronted the questions of Benton
and anti-Benton, Free-soil and Slave-soil, Whig and
Democrat, Hard and Soft. Therefore, a most bitter
and protracted struggle ensued in the organization
of the House, during which the special objects for
which the session had been called were entirely for
gotten  And thus the conflict raged, the
'Jackson Resolutions' being the real element of dis
cord: the Benton Democrats avowing the purpose
is elected from a populous district against the opposition of a well-organized
and enthusiastic body of Whigs, when his own party was split into two
irreconcilable factions, and when the Whigs knew that the whole of a
long life had been devoted to the bitterest and most vindictive, vituperative
warfare upon their cardinal principles and most eminent leaders. He is
elected from a district in which his violence of temper and haughtiness of
will have bred countless feuds and as it were petrified them into im
placable enmities  Nor did Benton attempt to conciliate. Concilia
tion is not in his rough and stubborn nature  " See also Rev. Pol.
Action, 106.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 7 1
to expunge them from the Journal; the Antis, to
keep them there; the Whigs securely poised on the
pedestal of 'armed neutrality.' " **
This special session of the General Assembly
did not adjourn finally until two days before the
time fixed by statute for the assembling of the next
regular session, which began December 27, 1852,
and adjourned February 24, 1853. The latter was
"a stormy session — storms in both Houses over the
Jackson Resolutions, and the questions of slavery,
secession and disunion."*' With its close we are
brought to the beginning of the memorable campaign
of 1853, which marks the culmination of Benton's
efforts to secure his restoration to the Senate — a
campaign deserving a detailed treatment which is
reserved for subsequent chapters.

88 Switzler's Missouri, 276-277.
89 Ibid.; Missouri House Journal, 519.

CHAPTER III
The Pacific Railroad-Benton's "Central National Highway"-
Nebraska Territorial Movement, 1852— Abelard Guthrie-Doug
las's Lack of Interest in Nebraska-Atchison's Inconsistency.
Nearly coincident with the beginning of the
schism in the Missouri Democracy precipitated by
Benton's "Appeal," occurred the discovery of gold in
California and the vast emigration from the eastern
States across Nebraska. With the growth of popu
lous settlements upon the Pacific coast arose the ne
cessity of providing for their protection and defense,
and for some means of cementing these widely sep
arated portions of the Union. In politics as else
where, necessity is the mother of invention; and the
necessity thus created gave birth to a variety of proj
ects designed to bind the Pacific settlements to the
rest of the Union. Of such projects none was more
ambitious or more pretentious than Thomas H. Ben
ton's plan for a "Central National Highway to the
Pacific." The importance of this project in the history of
the repeal of the Missouri Compromise lies in the
effective use which Colonel Benton made of it in his
struggle for restoration to the Senate. The "High
way" seemed to render necessary the adoption by the
Federal Government of a definite plan for the gov
ernment of the territory traversed. Colonel Benton

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 73
therefore urged the early organization of Nebraska
Territory as an indispensable means to the construc
tion and maintenance of the Great Highway. In
this he was actively seconded by the efforts of the
Wyandott Indians living in Nebraska through whose
lands the Highway would pass, and who were there
fore deeply interested in the scheme. Benton kept
these subjects so prominently before the people of
Missouri in 1852-53 that upon each of them Senator
Atchison had to define explicitly his position.
In 1849 Colonel Benton had introduced into the
Senate a bill "to provide for the location and con
struction of a central national road from the Pacific
Ocean to the Mississippi river, with a branch of said
road to the Columbia river." '" On the sixteenth of
December, 1850, a few days before the meeting of the
Legislature in which he was defeated for reelection
to the Senate, he introduced a second bill, "to pro
vide for the location and construction of a central

90 February 7, 1849. This bill was accompanied by a speech in which
the results of Fremont's explorations were reviewed at length. The scheme
for the central national highway, presented at this time, was not so
elaborately worked out as the one introduced in 1850, nor was it made
the object of attack and ridicule to such a degree. The bill of 1849 may
be found, together with Benton's speech, in Cong. Globe, xx, 470, 625.
The bill of 1850, with Benton's speech at that time, may be found in Cong.
Globe, xxiii, 56, and in Connelley's Prov. Gov., 88 ff. Neither bill came
to a final vote.
The idea of a railroad to the Pacific did not of course originate with
Benton. Before the introduction of his second bill, there had appeared in
print: Loughborough's The Pacific Telegraph and Railway (St. Louis,
1849), Asa Whitney's Project for a Railroad to the Pacific (N. Y., 1849),
and Peyton's Suggestions on Railroad Communication with the Pacific and
the Trade of the Indian Islands. See also Professor Turner's essay on
"The Significance of the Frontier in American History," in Am. Hist. Assn.,
Report, 1893, 204 n; and J. P. Davis's History of the Union Pacific Rail
way.

74 THE REPEAL OF
national highway from the Mississippi river, at St.
Louis, to the Bay of San Francisco, on the Pacific
ocean." For the next two years there is no evidence that
Colonel Benton displayed any active interest in the
railway measure by pressing it upon either the atten
tion of Congress or the country. Consequently when
he began an active championship of that project
and of the Nebraska territorial measure late in
1852 and continued to make them the leading issues
of the campaign of 1853, it afforded his enemies an
opportunity to allege that the advocacy of these proj
ects grew out of his political necessities in 1849-50,
and that they were now revived merely for election
eering purposes. During his thirty years of service
in the Senate, it was pointed out. Colonel Benton had
never manifested any special interest in these sub
jects until his term was about to expire. His osten
tatious devotion to these measures in 1853 was ac
cordingly ridiculed and denounced by Atchison and
his supporters as devoid of all sincerity and as a
purely demagogical bid for popularity in Missouri."

91 In speeches delivered at Weston and Platte City in June, 1853,
Senator Atchison made the following ironical allusion to Benton's project:
"In 1850 he [Colonel Benton] introduced his bill to construct a railroad
from St Louis to San Francisco, said road to be a mile wide for the
distance of two thousand miles, almost as much territory as is comprised
in some of the States of the Union, reserved and set aside for roads, a
railroad with double tracks, a turnpike road, a dirt road and a line of
telegraph. Magnificent was it not? .... But this was not all. When
the roads are completed one of the highest and most solid peaks of the Rocky
Mountains is to be cut into a statue of Christopher Columbus with an
arm outstretched and upon it to be inscribed 'The Road to India;' and
but for the modesty of the Old Statesman, another peak would be selected

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 75
It was an important part of Colonel Benton's
plan of campaign in 1853 so to associate the organi
zation of Nebraska Territory and the construction
of the railroad to the Pacific from St. Louis across
the State of Missouri, that the people of that State
would regard the territorial government as indis
pensable to the success of the railway, and in the suc
cess of the railway every Missourian felt a direct
interest.'^ Perhaps the first public utterance in which the
construction of the railroad to the Pacific and the
organization of a territorial government in Nebraska
are coupled is to be found in the report of a speech
delivered by Colonel Benton at Jackson in Cape Gir
ardeau county, Missouri, late in October, 1852.'^ In
this speech Colonel Benton had much to say about
the railroad, and in that connection occurs this pass
age: "Connected with this road, necessary to its construction and
preservation and indispensable to the approximation of our pop
ulations, is the establishment of the new territory on the Kansas
and a statue sculptured of the great man who by his genius and exertions
consummated what the mind of Columbus had conceived.
"The bill was introduced at the session of 1850-51, when our old and
distinguished statesman's senatorial career was about to close. A road
one mile wide and two thousand miles long, to be constructed at an expense
of from one hundred to two hundred million dollars, without examination
or survey. As to the survey, however, we are told that those primitive
engineers the Buffaloes had surveyed the route; and upon this Buffalo
information thus imparted Congres swas expected to act!" — Reported in
the Missouri Republican, June 22, 1853. See also the Western Eagle,
Aug. 17, 1849.
92 See the remarks of Hon. J. W. Lindley in the House, Cong. Globe,
xxxi, 797, quoted later in this chapter.
9^ Delivered Oct. 30, 1852, and reported in the Jefferson Inquirer,
Nov. 6, 1852.

76 THE REPEAL OF
river extending north and south to the Platte and Arkansas, and
west to the boundary lines of New Mexico and Utah. It is a
fine country . . . . in the healthy and genial climate of 38° and
39°, and now roamed over by a few unsettled Indians who would
be benefited by being reduced to small bands, supplied with stock
animals and taught agriculture and the rudiments of civilization.
Continuity of settlement, and of jurisdiction, consolidation of our
power from Missouri to California, filling up a blank which now
exists in our western territory, putting law and civilization into
communication across the continent and through its center, mak
ing travelling safe, direct and speedy and cheap between the
remote parts of our extended dominions; such are the powerful
national reasons for the immediate and indispensable establishment
of the Kansas Territory."
The second session of the 32d Congress had
scarcely adjourned in March, 1853, when Colonel
Benton issued a letter of great length addressed to
the people of Missouri, and intended for publication,
in which he took up anew and with characteristic
vigor the agitation of the Central National Highway
scheme, and emphasized the establishment of a ter
ritorial government in Nebraska as a means which
would facilitate the construction of the Great High-
way. In the following May, he wrote a letter to the
citizens of Cole county, Missouri,'^ in which he
again took pains to make clear the intimate connec
tion between the establishment of a territorial gov
ernment in Nebraska and the "location, construction
and support of the great central railroad."
Colonel Benton did not stop here, but grossly
94 The letter appeared in the National Intelligencer, June 7, 1853.
95 Dated May 3, 1853; in the Jefferson Inquirer, June 6, 1853, and
quoted in Chapter IV.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 77
misrepresented Atchison as not only not favoring the
railroad, but as being actively hostile to it; and also
as being opposed to the organization of a territorial
government, and therefore as acting in opposition
to the most important interests of his constituents.
To these misrepresentations. Senator Atchison
replied in speeches delivered at Weston and Platte
City in June, 1853,'* and later at Parkville," and
Fayette,'* explaining his position "without reserve or
disguise." Appealing to his record in Congress, he
pointed out that in 1850, two days after Colonel Ben
ton had introduced his bill for the Great National
Highway, he himself had introduced a bill granting
to Missouri the right of way and a portion of the
public lands for the purpose of aiding in the con
struction of a railroad from St. Louis to the western
limits of the State. He had also at previous sessions
introduced into the Senate a bill to grant the right of
way and a portion of the public lands to assist in the
construction of a railroad from Hannibal to St. Jo
seph. These bills ultimately became laws. The sole
credit for the passage of these measures Atchison did
not claim for himself.'' He was willing to share it
with his colleagues and they with him. But he was
careful to point out that those bills became "the laws
96 The speeclies at Weston and Platte Citv, June 6 and ii, are re
ported in tlie Missouri Republican, June 22, 1853.
97 Aug. S, 1853. Reported in the Missouri Republican, .-Vug. 31, 1853.
98 Early in November, 1S53. Reported in the Jefferson Inquirer, Nov.
14, 1853. 99 For evidence of Atchison's activity in procuring land grants in aid
of Missouri railroads, see Cong. Globe, xxiii, 23, 35, 56, 7S, 133, 215. 459i
476, £34, 661.

78 THE REPEAL OF
of the land since the exodus of the 'Old Senator' from
that chamber which he so beautifully adorned for
thirty years." Senator Atchison then went on to ex
plain the importance of this legislation and his own
attitude toward a railroad to the Pacific :
"The land obtained by these measures will assist in the con
struction of two roads from the Mississippi, both pointing to the
Pacific Ocean, either of them long links in the chain of railroads
yet to be constructed  Who does not perceive and is not
willing to admit that the grant of lands thus obtained will facili
tate, expedite and certainly insure, the speedy completion of the
Hannibal and St. Joseph railroad, the Pacific railroad from St.
Louis to Kansas, as well as the southwestern branch of the same,
terminating in a section of the State rich in resources hitherto
undeveloped. Missouri will then occupy the enviable position of
being able to offer to the United States three frontier starting
points for the Pacific railroad, an offer which cannot be made by
any other State in the Union.
"The construction of these roads through Missouri will
obviate a constitutional objection, entertained by many as to the
power of Congress to build works of this sort through the State.
In obtaining these grants of land the first link toward connecting
by railroad the valley of the Mississippi with the Pacific, was
heated, formed and welded, and if ever the connection is made,
(and I doubt not it will be) and either of the points upon our
western border be made the starting point, it will be because this
link has been made. In making this Colonel Benton had no
agency, he being present neither at the heating, forming, welding
or completion of it  ""
100 This speech included the following caustic reference to Colonel
Benton: "Now fellow citizens, I will close my remarks upon the subject
of the Nebraska Territory and the Road to India by saying that I sincerely
believe the greatest obstacles to the success of both these measures are the
position of our Old Senator and the Old Senator himself, with his arrogant
dogmatism, and self-sufficiency. Humbuggery will defeat those measures
if anything can. His motives spring not from a desire for the public good ;
he imagines that he is now astride of two popular hobbies and he will

TIIE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 79
"I will now give you briefly my opinion of the railroad to
connect the valley of the Mississippi river with the Pacific coast.
I am in favor of the construction of such a ro:ul by the Ciencral
Government for that purpose. I will vote to appropriate land
and money. I believe it absolutely necessary for the preservation
of the intcj^rity of this Union  As to where it shall com
mence or where it shall end, that is .1 matter to be determined
wlien the surveys and operations now in progress shall be com
pleted, and the route it must take between the termini is entirely
depeiuleiu upon these surveys. We may bluster about a northern,
a southern nnd a central route; but it all amounts to nothing;
nothinj:; but the actual surveys c:iii determine it  I have
been represented by my enemies as being opposed to the whole
measure. Then :i!::ain I havc been represented as being in favor
of a southern route commencins; at Galveston, Texas, running
by El Paso; at another time in favor of one commencing at
Memphis and running throusjh Arkans;is, Texas, and so forth,
ride theni without raercy. He announces himself a candidate for the
Senate in 1855 to take ray place; and upon these hobbies he wishes to ride
into office. . . . Oo 3rou know gentlemen, tliat Benton has been frora
his arrogance nnd tyrannionl bearing in the Senate considered a nuisance
by his i-ollf agues in that body? .... Now gentlemen, Colonel Benton
has but little influence with a Democratic Administration. He deserves
none. The Colonel is very well understood everv where but at home. The
llfiuiicrats out of the State of Missouri do not rewgnize him as one of
thera. The ^^'l^igs know hira not. Both these parties look upon him as
an outsi,ifr. The abolitionists and freesoilers, however, recognize him as
one of their most distinguished leaders, and vfrlly they are not mistaken in
the m-in. Hc has done more for their cause than one hundred Garrisons,
Hales, Chases or Sewards  "
On May 39, Senator .-Xtchison wrote as follows to Judge S. Treat:
"I will speak to the <icholf Slatt, from the court house in this town
[Platte City] on Mondav next, and from the church in \\'cshin on Sat
urday week. My theme will be •Schnisk.i' Sc the "road to India.' 1 will
dwell a sliort tirae upon the reply to the Holl\- letter.
"(.)f all the humbugs the old sinner [Benton] has ever mounted, of all
the lame, blind, windbrokcn, A: spavined hobbies, the old villain ever
bestrode, he has now mounted the raost sliabby, his sitting astraddle of the
big gun when it bursted' [on board the man-of-war, "Princeton"] was
nothing to it." This letter is reprinted in Mo. Hist. Soo. Proc, ii, 90.

8o THE REPEAL OF
and of any route that would be most inconvenient and prejudicial
to the interests of Missouri. Now the man who originated these
charges and those who publish them know that they (I will not
say lie) have 'said the thing that is not so.' It is false on its
face. I am and have been a citizen of this State more than half
my years. All the interest I have on earth is here. You know
it and you scorn the men who conceived, uttered and published
the falsehood 
"But, fellow citizens, Colonel Benton says that the road to
the Pacific must commence at Kansas and run through a pass in
the Rocky Mountains, the pass of which Leroux and Fremont
speak, and through which Beal is to travel on his way to Califor
nia, and nowhere else, and Benton and Benton men put me
down against it 'because of my dislike of Colonel Benton.' Now
I do not love Benton; that is well known. But if his route
should prove a route at all and is the cheapest and best route and
most to the interest of Missouri, I will vote for and sustain that
route. But, fellow citizens, I doubt very much whether the
Congress of the United States can agree on the exact point of
beginning or end of this railroad or the course it shall pursue
between the termini  There is no doubt in my mind that
a large majority of Congress and the people of the United States
are in favor of the construction of a railroad. Colonel Benton
and his friends will have it that Atchison, Phelps, etc., are op
posed to the Great Road to India. It was proposed at the last
session of Congress by amendments offered to Gwin's bill to com
mence the road at Galveston, Vicksburg and Memphis. All such
propositions were voted down by large majorities. It was pro
posed by Mr. Chase of Ohio to commence the road at a point
between the southwest corner of Missouri and the Council Bluffs.
This proposition was withdrawn. My opinion is that this matter
of the termini and the route of the road will of necessity be left to
the discretion of the President, and there I am willing to leave
it. General Pierce has no personal interest in it. He represents
no local interest but the whole Union is in his keeping. So much
for the railroad."
One important result of the prominence given

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 8 1
to the subject of a railroad from the Mississippi to
the Pacific in 1852-53 was to reawaken interest in
Nebraska Territory and to impress upon the people
of Missouri and Iowa and the Wyandott Indians in
Nebraska the necessity of establishing a territorial
government over the possible route, not only for the
protection of the railroad but also for the validation
of land titles and for the promotion of settlement
along its route.
We therefore discover the final movement for
the organization of Nebraska Territory springing up
during the summer of 1852 '" in two different quar
ters — among the Missouri frontiersmen and among
the Wyandott Indians in Nebraska. Apparently
these movements had no connection at the beginning
save the common stimulus furnished by the railroad
agitation. But, though local in character and rep
resenting local interests, they became within a year
very closely related to each other and also related to
the political fortunes of Benton and Atchison during
the internecine political war in Missouri described
in the preceding chapter, and therefore they consti
tute a part of the story of the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise. On the seventeenth of June, 1852, the citizens of
Parkvillc, Platte county, on the western border of
Missouri, convened in public meeting "for the pur
pose of considering the propriety of petitioning Con
gress for the organization of the Territory of Nebras-
lOUn December, 1S51, Hon. Willard P. Hall had introduced into the
House his abortive bill for the ors;ani/ation of the Territory of "Platte;"
Cong. Globe, xxiv, Pt. i, So. Mr. Hall resided at St. Joseph, Buchanan
County, Missouri, in the western part of the State.

82 THE REPEAL OF
ka, and for the immediate settlement of lands lying
therein" from which the Indian title had been ex
tinguished. After free discussion a resolution was
"unanimously adopted as expressive of the sense of
the meeting," petitioning Congress for "the imme
diate organization of the Territory of Nebraska,"
and for the right of settlement therein as soon as the
Indian titles should be extinguished."^

102 1 am indebted to William M. Paxton, Esq., of Platte City, Mo.,
for the loan of the Weekly Platte Argus which gives an account of this
Parkville meeting in its issue of June 25, 1852. The preamble and res
olutions were as follows:
"Whereas the limits of the United States have been extended to the
shores of the Pacific Ocean, and Oregon, California, Utah and New Mexico
have been constituted a part of this Union; and Whereas, That the Terri
tory of Nebraska has been made the connecting section, and left as an open
space between the two flanks of civilization, it has become the true policy
of the Governraent of the United States that this space should be closed
up; and Whereas, That the Territory of Nebraska is now being annually
traversed by many thousands of the citizens of the United States who emi
grate from the States of the Atlantic to the Pacific shores, and the roads
of the emigrants leading through the Territory are over lands of great
fertility, and which are well suited for settlement and cultivation, but
which, under existing circumstances, are withheld from settlement and culti
vation, and allowed to present to the emigrants who wend their way
through them, only the face of dreariness and waste, a country that pro
duces nothing for the support of raen; and Whereas, That the roads of
the emigrants stretch over the uncultivated lands of the Territory of
Nebraska for the distance of five or six hundred miles, which they are
compelled to traverse, with no laws to protect their persons or property
from aggressions, no inns or taverns to afford them shelter or food, no
persons to furnish them with forage or provisions, no physicians to prescribe
for them when attacked with disease, while they are subject to enormous
tolls; and Whereas, That the Territory of Nebraska has ceased to be an
available hunting ground for the Indians of the tribes and bands claiming
lands therein:
"Therefore, Resolved, That the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States, be and they are hereby petitioned to provide by law
for ihe immediate organization of the Territory of Nebraska, and fpr,
domiciling the Indians of the several tribes and bands which claim lands
lying therein, upon small parcels of land to be assigned to them for

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 83
The meeting directed that a record of its pro
ceedings be sent to the President of the United States
Senate, to Senator David R. Atchison and to Hon.
Willard P. Hall, of the House of Representatives,
with the request to each that the record be "laid be
fore their respective bodies." "^
Almost simultaneously with this popular move
ment in western Missouri there appeared a move
ment having a similar purpose among the Wyandott
Indians. The Wyandotts, having resided since the War
of 1812 in portions of Ohio and Michigan in close
contact with the whites, had, by the year 1843, be-
cultivation, and also for the immediate settlement of ihe lands of the
Territory from which the Indian title has been extinguished by American
citizens who may desire to emigrate and become inhabitants of said
Territory." Another resolution provided "That a record of the proceedings of
this meeting be forwarded to the editors of each of the several newspapers
printed in the counties of Platte and Clay with the request that the same
be published in their respective journals."
Compare this description of conditions along the emigrant routes in
Nebraska with that given by Abelard Guthrie, the Nebraska Territorial
Delegate, in his letter to Hon. H. L. Dawes, July 20, i86i, to be found
in Connelley's Prov. Gov., 74 ff. ; and with the remarks of Mr. Hall of
Missouri in the House, Feb. 10, 1853, Cong. Globe, xxvi, 558 ff. ; also with
Douglas's remarks, July 8, 1852, Cong. Globe, xxiv, Pt. ii, 1683.
103 These resolutions were presented to the Senate by Senator Atchison
July 7, 1852; Cong. Globe, xxiv, Pt. ii, 1666. From Douglas's remarks in
the Senate, July 13, 1852, it appears that "memorials upon memorials in
piles, from all the western States" had been flowing in upon the Committee
on Territories during this session of Congress — "memorials for the pro
tection of the emigrant lines .... between the Mississippi river and the
Pacific ocean." This is given as the reason for the introduction into that
session of Congress of his bill to protect the emigrant route, and to establish
a mail route and a telegraph line to the Pacific coast. From his own state
ment at the time, "I was not ambitious to come forward with a proposition
of this kind," it may be inferred that he was acting with some degree of
reluctance. — Con,?. Globe, xxiv, Pt. i, 11 61, Pt. ii, 1683, Pt. iii, 1760-1761.

84 THE REPEAL OF
come quite civilized. "Families founded by white
captives who had been adopted into the tribe came
into the ascendancy in the affairs of the tribe." "*
Methodism had been introduced among them, and a
permanent mission established in their midst. Even
a lodge of Free Masons further testified to their prog
ress in civilization. They had developed an organ
ized government based upon a code of written laws,
which provided for the punishment of crimes and the
maintenance of social and public order."^
The Ohio Wyandotts were the last of the tribes
in that State to relinquish their lands, but in 1842
they ceded them to the United States, and in the fol
lowing year the tribe, then numbering about seven
thousand, crossed the Mississippi, carrying with
them, of course, their civilized institutions. Here
they purchased thirty-six sections of land from the
Delawares, located in the fork of the Missouri and
the Kansas rivers, and directly opposite Platte and
Buchanan counties in Missouri."^
Among the Wyandott Nation in 1852-53 there
lO"* Kansas Historical Society's Transactions, xi, 98.
105 Connelley's Prov. Gov., 2-3, and Kan. Hist Soc. TransactioTis, vi, 97
ff. See also R. E. Merwin's paper, "The Wyandott Indians," in Kan.
Hist. Soc. Trans., ix, 73 ff.
106 Connelley's Prov. Gov., 2-3. In 1855 the great majority of the Wy
andotts accepted the allotment of their lands in severalty and dissolved their
tribal relations. Ibid. "Immediately at the confluence of the Kaw [Kan
sas] and the Missouri lies the Wyandott reserve. It is small, extending six
miles from the mouth. It is densely timbered. The tribe is not numerous,
but they are comparatively civilized. They have mostly good farms and
good houses for the West. They are wealthy, many of them having inter
married with the Whites." — Phillips's Conquest of Kansas, 12.
The following is taken from the Iowa State Gazette of November
9, 1853: "The editor of the Bloomington (Mo.) Republican lately visited

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 85
were not a few men of education and ability "' who
had watched closely the consideration by Congress
of measures which might affect their interests. They
had observed the great emigration to California in
1848-50 passing through their lands or those of
neighboring tribes. They were aware of the plans
then being discussed for the construction of a rail
road to the Pacific along the "central" route. "To
them the purpose to build this road, and the presence
of the gold-hunters, was other evidence that they must

the Territory (of Nebraska) and since his return writes thus about it:
'. . . . The Wyandotts are all civilized and generally educated; have neat
and comfortable buildings, good farms, yet not extensive, stock in abun
dance, and live in pure American style. While on a recent visit to Ne
braska we dined at the house of a Mr. Hicks, supped and breakfasted with
a Mr. Garrett, Wyandott families, and we can say truthfully that better
tables are seldom found in Missouri  We spent several hours with
William Walker, the Provisional Governor of Nebraska. He is a man of
very affable manners, and was frank and free in his communications with
us. He is well educated and possesses fair talents. The Shawnees, Dela
wares, Kickapoos and other border tribes are partially civilized. Many
of them are well educated and speak good English. We could hear of
no tribes that desired to sell and leave the country. Some are for selling,
reserving a preemption right and becoming citizens. Others are for selling
part, reserving the other part, ultimately intending to become citizens.
In our opinion the Wyandotts, Shawnees, Delawares and Kickapoos will
finally decide to adopt the first of these plans. The border tribes are very
friendly and quite kind ; no trouble need be apprehended with any of them,
if justly treated. . . . -' "
107 Sketches of the leading men in the Wyandott Nation at this time
may be found in Connelley's Prov. Gov., 5 ff.
In speaking afterwards of the plans of the radical pro-slavery party
in Missouri, Judge William C. Price said:
"One of the things which proved bad for us, was the removal of the
Wyandotts to the mouth of the Kansas River. It was not the intention
that they should settle there. They were to have a large tract of land in
Southern Kansas (what is now Southern Kansas). No one supposed that
they would buy land of another tribe ; such a thing had not been thought
of. When they bought land of the Delawares and obtained control of the
mouth of the Kansas River we were fearful that it was not for our best

86 THE REPEAL OF
soon surrender their lands. They came to the conclu
sion that this was inevitable. If they must sell their
lands, they desired to obtain as high a price as could
be procured. They came to see that the organiza
tion of Nebraska territory would enhance the value
of their lands, and from thenceforth were in favor
of the measure." ^°*
In the summer or autumn of 1852 a movement
began among the Wyandotts, led by "a few daring
and resolute spirits," whose avowed purpose was to
force upon the attention of Congress the organization
interest; there were too many white men in the tribe. Then the tribe came
recently from Ohio where there was much opposition to slavery, and
where existed the most successful underground railroad for conveying
slaves to Canada. Then again, this tribe had but just settled at the mouth
of the Kansas River when the division of the Methodist Church into
Northern and Southern parts caused almost a war between the factions
of the tribe. The portion of the tribe which wished to remain with the
Old Church cried out against slavery, and the question was kept in con
stant agitation where we most desired nothing said. When it was sup
posed that Nebraska Territory would be organized we were often solicited
by the faction in favor of the Church, South, to take a hand, but we were
averse to doing that and hoped the question would quiet down. However,
it did not do so. Benton, Blair, Brown, even Phelps, encouraged its agita
tion. The moving spirits in the cause of the Church, North, and in con
demning slavery, were J. M. Armstrong and Abelard Guthrie. Guthrie
remained in Washington much of the time, as we believed then, at Ben
ton's expense. At any rate, it was known that he and Benton were much
together; we had no doubt they acted in concert." Reported by William
E. Connelley. 108 Wm. E. Connelley, in Kan. Hist. Soc Trans., vi, loo. "It was the
Indians, not the indigenous, but the emigrant Indians themselves, especially
the Wyandotts, that warmly favored the occupation by white people of the
vacant lands and ultimate organization of the Territory. They foresaw
that the pressure westward and from the Pacific slope eastward of emigra
tion would ere long force the Government to abandon its restrictive policy.
The Wyandotts and such whites as were within their tribe took the
initiatory step by holding an election for a delegate to Congress in the fall
of 1852  " — Governor Walker's "Notes on the Early History of
Nebraska," in Connelley's Prov. Gov., 58 ff.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 87
of a territorial government for Nebraska.^"' The
first definite step was the election of a "Delegate to
Congress." This occurred on the twelfth of Oc
tober, 1852, in the Council House of the Wyandott
Nation. All the votes cast were for Mr. Abelard
Guthrie, a white man who had married a Wyandott
woman and later had been adopted into the tribe.""
Upon the twentieth of November, 1852, Guthrie
set out for Washington. From Cincinnati, he wrote a
109 Governor Walker's "Notes on Nebraska Territory,'' in Connelley's
Prov. Gov., 60-61. Names of Wyandott leaders are given in Kan.
Hist. Soc. Trans., vi, 102. In a letter dated June 26, 1856, Abelard
Guthrie, the "Territorial Delegate" wrote to Hon. Israel Washburn: "Four
years had elapsed since the last abortive attempt to organize a govemment
for Nebraska, and the people of that Territory had but little reason to
believe that their interests would be attended to until they sent a delegate
to urge them upon the consideration of Congress. They had observed that
this course had been pursued by the people of Oregon, of Utah, of New
Mexico and of Minnesota, with success."
Mr. Connelley states that the Wyandotts sent a petition to the first
session of the 32d Congress praying for the organization of Nebraska Ter
ritory. Connelley's Prov. Gov., 102. No authority or reference is given
for this statement, and I have been unable to verify it.
110 Speaking of this election. Governor Walker wrote: ". . . . But
a serious question at hand had to be solved: Who would go, if elected,
and run the risk of having to pay his own expenses to, at and from Wash
ington, as it was extremely doubtful whether the delegate so elected would
be admitted to a seat. Mr. A. G., a man of talents and some experience
in public life, having 'done the State some service' in other responsible
positions, offered his services and was duly elected amidst the opposition
of Government officials, the military especially. There being no existing
provisional government in the Territory to give official evidence to Mr. G.
of his election, he took with him the poll books as prima facie evidence of
his election." — "Notes on Nebraska Territory," in Connelley's Prov. Gov.,
60-61. Guthrie had first become interested in the Wyandotts while filling
the office of Register of the Land Office in Upper Sandusky, Ohio, under
President Tyler in 1842. He followed the Wyandotts to Nebraska in 1843:
A sketch of his life and a photograph are given in Connelley's Prov.
Gov., loi ff.

88 THE REPEAL OF
letter "* to William Walker of the Wyandott Na
tion"^ which states that he had travelled from St.
Louis in company with Messrs. Geyer and Atchison,
the Senators from Missouri, Representative Richard
son, then chairman of the House Committee on Ter
ritories, and Mr. W. H. Bissell, both of Illinois."^
The chief significance of the letter lies in the indi
cation which it gives of the attitude of both Atchison
and Benton toward the organization of Nebraska
Territory more than a year before the introduction
into Congress of the bill finally known as the Kan
sas-Nebraska bill. In view of Guthrie's interest in
the matter, he would naturally seek and be entitled
to know exactly how they stood upon the subject.
The following passage from the letter is accordingly
entitled to considerable weight:
"I am sorry to say that our Missouri Senators are by no
means favorable to our Territorial projects. The slavery ques
tion is the cause of this opposition. I regret that it should inter
fere — it ought not. Mr. Atchison thinks that the slaves of
Nebraska '^'* are already free by the operation of the Missouri

111 Dated December i, 1852. Printed in Connelley's Prov. Gov., 76-77.
112 William Walker was elected Provisional Governor of Nebraska
Territory in 1853.
113 "Colonel Bissell took great interest in the Missouri conflict and was
constantly in correspondence with the leaders .... [Benton, Blair, and
Brown] and at times met them in consultation. No man in Illinois was
held in higher estimation by the early workers for Free Soil in Missouri
than Colonel Bissell." — Charles P. Johnson's "Personal Recollections of
Some Eminent Statesmen and Lawyers of Illinois," in Illinois State His
torical Library's Publications, No. 9, 47.
114xhe following occurs in Phillips's Conquest of Kansas (1856),
16-17: "But even while Kansas was guaranteed to freedom, slavery was intro
duced. Nearly all of the Indian agents were slavery propagandists, and
many of them owned slaves. The first slavery in the Territory, however,

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 89
Compromise, and asks the repeal of that act before anything
shall be done for Nebraska; this would put us back till doomsday
for no Congress as our Government now stands will ever repeal
that act. But for myself I do not consider it binding upon the
people in moulding their state institutions. However, since the
South take a different view of it, we must fight it out. I foresee
the struggle will be a fierce one but it will be short and therefore
not dangerous. I did not expect to accomplish this object without
trouble; and I feel prepared for it. One incentive to determined
perseverance is the fact that I beat Bannow at his own election,
so Mr. Atchison informs me. ^^^ I shall certainly endeavor to
merit the good opinion my friends have formed of me. I am full
of hope and confidence as I have been from the start. I called to
see Col. Benton but he had gone to Washington. This is fortu
nate, for he is our friend and can do us great service. ^^^ The
measure will succeed, short as the time is, and with an opposition
where we ought to have support  " ^^^
Guthrie arrived in Washington December 5,

was introduced by one who came professedly to preach the Gospel 
The Reverend Thomas Johnson .... is said to have first introduced
slavery into Kansas. He introduced and held slaves at the time when the
existence of the restriction rendered it a violation of the spirit of the
temporal law."
115 Referring to this election, Mr. Guthrie said: "At Fort Leaven
worth .... (where the largest body of citizens resided) the officer in
command of the post [Col. T. T. Fauntleroy] forbade an election. Subse
quently, however, certain persons proposed holding another election, to
overturn the first. This election was held at Fort Leavenworth (the com
manding officer having abandoned his opposition), and resulted in a large
majority for rae, I think, 54 to 16." According to Mr. Connelley, this
second election in which Mr. Bannow (or Barrow) ran against Guthrie,
was at the suggestion of Senator Atchison ; Kan. Hist. Soc. Trans., vi, 102.
116 To this point the italics are mine; those that follow are Guthrie's.
117 Referring to Mr. Guthrie's services in connection with the estab
lishment of a territorial government in Nebraska, Mr. Connelley says:
"All the evidence I have been able to obtain and examine shows that
he was acting with, and largely for. Senator Thomas H. Benton of
Missouri, although he says that the idea was his own and that 'solitary and
alone' he undertook this work  " — Prov. Gov., loi.

90 THE REPEAL OF
1852, the day before Congress opened."* Evidently
at first he experienced up-hill work in pressing the
claims of Nebraska upon members of Congress, for
we find him writing again to Walker on the ninth of
December:"^ " . . . . There is no business which tries a man's patience
and good nature so much as trying to do business with men who
feel that their self-interests are not intimately connected with your
projects  I have ascertained almost to a certainty that I
shall not get my seat. But that is a small matter. I never ex
pected it and am not disappointed, but my faith is still strong
that much will be effected."
There were causes for hope rather than discour
agement: "Mr. Hall has proposed a bill organizing one Territory, he
has given it the name of Platte ; which I don't like but don't care
much about the name though I shall try to have the old name
retained. His bill has not yet been introduced but it is all
ready and I think will be presented next week; if not another
will be introduced by the Committee on Territories. The Chair
man [Richardson] of that Committee has given me assurances
to that effect. Mr. Hall's bill says nothing about slavery but
leaves untouched the Missouri Compromise. The Territory it is
pretty confidently believed will be free."
He then speaks of a measure which actually
passed that session of Congress and prepared the
way for the organization of the territorial govern
ment:^^" "Another measure highly beneficial to our interest will be the

118 Connelley's Prov. Gov., 79, 81.
119 This letter may also be found in Connelley's Prov. Gov., 78-79.
120 This was introduced by J. S. Phelps, a Representative from Mis
souri, as an amendment to the Indian Appropriation bill, February 24,
1853 ; Cong. Globe, xxvi, 825. The Act, approved, may be found in
Cong. Globe, xxvii, 359.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 91
appropriation of one hundred thousand dollars to enable the Pres
ident to negotiate with thie different tribes for their surplus lands
and other purposes. You will therefore have commissioners au
thorized to treat early in the spring. This is important and you
may regard it as a 'fixed fact.' . . . ."
True to his expectation, Mr. Guthrie witnessed
the next week the introduction by Mr. Hall of the
bill mentioned in the letter to Walker, and its refer
ence to the Committee on Territories.^^'
Four days after the introduction and reference
of Mr. Hall's bill, Mr. Phelps of Missouri presented
the memorial of Mr. Guthrie asking to be admitted
to a seat on the floor of the House as a "Territorial
Delegate." The memorial was referred to the Com
mittee on Elections '^^ and "a report was made there
on and ordered to be printed, but no further action
was had upon it." "As was feared," to quote Wil
liam Walker, "he was not admitted to a seat in the
House, though his election was admitted, yet he did
good service 'on his own charges' in the character of
a 'lobby member.' " '-'
On the second of February, 1853, Mr. Richard
son, for the Committee on Territories, reported Hall's
bill with amendments, which after considerable de
bate passed the House on the tenth of February, by a
vote of 98 to 43.^'''

1-1 December 13, 1852; Cong. Globe, xxvi, 47.
1-- December 17, 1852; Cong. Globe, xxvi, 85, 1127. "Report of House
Committee on Elections," April 3, 1862, in Connelley's Prov. Gov., 67 ff;
House Journal, 2d Sess., 32d Cong., 50.
1-3 Walker's "Notes on the Early History of Nebraska," in Connelley's
Prov. Gov., 58 ff.
l--t Cong. Globe, xxvi, SS^ ff- Before leaving this part of our subject,
it may be well to give a few more facts regarding Guthrie. In 1S54 and

92 THE REPEAL OF
The principal participants in this debate were
Houston of Alabama, Brooks of New York, and
Howard of Texas, in opposition to the bill ; and Hall
of Missouri defending and supporting it. The re-
1856 Guthrie submitted to the House memorials asking for the passage of
an act whereby he should receive mileage and per diem for the period
during which he acted as "Territorial Delegate." — House Journal, ist
Sess., 33d Cong., 170, 408, 615; ibid., ist Sess., 34th Congress, Pt. ii, 1343;
House Reports, ist Sess., 34th Cong., No. 257.
The matter dragged along until 1862 when the House Committee on
Elections, to which the memorial had been referred, reported favorably
to Guthrie's claim, citing as precedents the case of similar "Delegates" from
New Mexico and Utah. In Mr. Connelley's Provisional Government are
reprinted the letters written by Guthrie to Hon. Israel Washburn, and Hon.
Henry L. Dawes, chairmen at different times of the House Committee on
Elections while Guthrie's claim was pending, and also the final report of
the Committee, just mentioned. — House Reports, 2d Session, 37th Congress,
No. 67. These letters are designed to prove particularly the propriety and
necessity which existed in 1852-53 of the establishment of a territorial gov
ernment and the sending of a delegate to Congress. They incidentally
show something of Guthrie's activity, although perhaps in a somewhat
exaggerated degree, but they do not throw much light upon the connection
of Benton and Atchison with the project.
In view of what Judge Price said about the Wyandotts and Guthrie,
it may be well to quote here a few closing sentences from Guthrie's letter
to Mr. Dawes, dated, Washington, July 21, 1861:
"Allow me also, if you please, to submit the following propositions:
"If your Committee have any sufficient evidence or can procure any,
that it was the intention of the party then [1853-54] in power, or any other
party, to organize this Territory within any reasonable or definite period,
I will abandon my claim.
"If the Committee have any sufficient evidence, or can procure any,
that there was any other course as likely to succeed in securing an organ
ization as that of sending to Congress a man acquainted with the condi
tions, wants, soil, climate and resources of the Territory, I will give up
my claim 
"If the Committee have any sufficient evidence, or can obtain any, that
this Territory would not eventually have been received into the Union as a
slave State under the skillful management and well-matured plans of South
ern Statesmen and their Northern friends, I will abandon my claim. . . .
"If the Committee have any evidence, or can get any, that my move
ment for a govemment did not frustrate this design, I will abandon my
claim  " Connelley's Prov. Gov., 74 ff.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 93
marks of the two last-named, were more extended
than those of any other speakers. The main objection
raised to the bill was that the erection of a territorial
government around the various Indian tribes in the
Nebraska country would constitute a violation of
existing treaty stipulations with those tribes.
The only allusion to the subject of slavery in
the course of this debate was the brief and oft-quoted
colloquy between Giddings of Ohio and Howe of
Pennsylvania. The latter inquired of Mr. Gid
dings, who was a member of the Committee on Terri
tories reporting the bill, why there was no clause in
the bill prohibiting slavery in the new Territory.
Mr. Giddings replied in effect that the Missouri
Compromise restriction applied to all of that region.
Thereupon Mr. Howe made the rejoinder: "I
should like to know of the gentleman from Ohio, if
he has not some recollection of a compromise made
since then." To which Mr. Giddings answered,
"That does not affect this question." The inference
always drawn from the incident is that Mr. Howe,
and perhaps other persons, had conceived that in
some way or other the Missouri Compromise prohi
bition had been impaired by the compromise meas
ures of 1850.'"
A week after the bill passed the House, Senator
125 Cong. Globe, xxvi, 558 ff. There is considerable evidence tending
to prove that the extremists in the South took it for granted that the Missouri
Compromise was repealed by tlie Compromise of 1850. This would go far
toward explaining the very general apathy and indifference to the Repeal
while the Kansas-Nebraska bill was pending in Congress which is revealed
by an examination of the leading southern newspapers. See an editorial
in the New York Tribune, December 14, 1853 ; and an editorial in the St.
Louis Intelligencer, November 10, 1850, quoted in Chapter VI, note 268.

94 THE REPEAL OF
Douglas reported it to the Senate without amend
ment, and on the last day of the session, he moved to
take it up for consideration. Objection was at once
made by Mr. Rusk of Texas, and Mr. Adams of
Mississippi immediately raised the question regard
ing Indian rights which had been threshed over in
the House. The Senate refused to consider the bill.
It is worth while digressing at this point to bring
out the striking contrast to the activity of Missou
rians, lowans and Wyandotts in promoting the or
ganization of Nebraska Territory presented by the
inaction of Senator Douglas. Mr. Douglas's con
nection with the Nebraska bill in March, 1853, just
mentioned, is the first indication of any interest on
his part in Nebraska since December, 1848. Yet he
had the assurance to say in the Senate on this occa
sion :'^^
"I must remind my friend from Mississippi [Mr. Adams]
that eight years ago, when he and I were members of the House
of Representatives, I was then pressing the Nebraska bill, and
that I have ever since been pressing it. I have tried to get it
through for eight long years  "
This statement is the basis for the widely cur
rent, but erroneous, opinion that the organization of
a territorial government in Nebraska had been a pet
measure with Mr. Douglas for nearly a decade be
fore the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. An
examination of the sources justifies the statement that
Mr. Douglas's efforts in this direction have been
very greatly exaggerated. Whatever efforts Mr.
Douglas may have put forth between 1848 and 1853
126 Co n^. Globe, xxvi, 1117; see also Douglas's speech at Chicago,
November 9, 1854, and Cutts's Const, and Party Questions, 87.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 95
in the interest of Nebraska appear to have been lim
ited to private interviews and to the sessions of the
Committee on Territories, of which we have no rec
ord. The indexes of the Congressional Globe and
of the House and Senate Journals fail to disclose the
introduction by him of any Nebraska territorial bill
after the year 1848 until he reported the Kansas-
Nebraska bill in January, 1854. After December,
1848, there ensued on his part more than four years
of silence upon the subject of Nebraska Territory.
On the other hand, other members of Congress had
been manifesting in the interim a degree of interest
quite in contrast to that of Mr. Douglas. Let us
take up in order the various Nebraska bills which
came before Congress prior to 1854 and see the occa
sion of their introduction and who had been their
promoters. The original suggestion of a territorial govern
ment for the Nebraska country appeared in the an
nual report of Hon. William Wilkins, Secretary of
War under President Tyler, dated November 30,
1844.'-^ After referring to the explorations of Lieu
tenant Fremont and of the reluctance of Congress to
organize a territorial government over the Oregon
country owing to the conflicting claims of England,
the Secretary goes on to recommend the organization
of a territorial government in the region east of the
Rocky Mountains, to be called Nebraska Territory,
"in connection with, and preliminary to, the extension
127 This report may be found in full in House Executive Documents,
2d Sess., 28th Cong., i, 124 ff.

96 THE REPEAL OF
in that direction of our military posts." ^^^ The first
suggestion, therefore, of a territorial government for
Nebraska was made with a view to strengthen our
claim upon the Oregon region and to obtain a foot
hold upon the Pacific coast, but it did not originate
with the Senator from Illinois. Indeed, it appears
to have been this recommendation which first sug
gested to Mr. Douglas the idea of a territorial gov
ernment in Nebraska and which led him to introduce
his first Nebraska bill in December, 1844. ^^'
128 "Although," to use the Secretary's own words, "the number of
inhabitants engaged in agriculture and other pursuits within those limits
do not afford an amount of population at all adequate, at present, to the
formation of a full and complete territorial government; yet such an
inchoate or preliminary organization might be now adopted, as would be
necessary to extend the control and authority of the general government,
and to throw its protection around our emigrants to Oregon, in their
passage through this country." In support of his recommendation, the
Secretary then proceeds to argue that "A territorial organization of the
country, and a military force placed on the very summit whence flow all
the great streams of the North American continent, either into the Gulf of
Mexico or the Pacific Ocean, would not longer leave our title to the Oregon
territory a barren or untenable claim. Its possession and occupancy would
thenceforth not depend upon the naval superiority on the Pacific Ocean.
Troops and supplies from the projected Nebraska Territory would be able
to contend for its possession with any force coming from the sea. Natural
obstructions in the navigation of the Columbia river would enable settle
ments gradually to approach the coast in defiance (if it should come to
that) of any navy in the world. The time, indeed, might not be distant
when these very settlements would supply all the elements which might
be needed, of naval strength, to give us our natural and proper position
on the Pacific Ocean  " The military side of this suggestion may
be traced back through the messages of President Tyler, dated, December,
1843, and December 6, 1842. See Richardson's Messages and Papers of the
Presidents, iv, 196, 258, 337.
129 Following close upon the report of the Secretary of War, Mr.
Douglas, then serving his first term in the House, gave notice of a bill
to establish a territorial government in Nebraska. Five days thereafter
he introduced a bill for the establishment of a territorial government along
the lines suggested by the Secretary of War. (December 11 and 16,

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 97
After a silence of nearly four years, so far as
the official record shows, the second Nebraska terri
torial bill was introduced by Mr. Douglas, who was
then serving his first term as Senator, in March,
1848. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Territories, reported back on the twentieth of
April, and made a special order for the twenty-
sixth. "" It has been impossible to discover that
any further action was had upon the bill. It is
also impossible to state positively what led Mr.
Douglas to introduce it. It is highly probable, how
ever, that the impulse came from the State of Mis
souri. The Journal of the House of Representatives
discloses the fact that three months before Mr. Doug
las introduced his second bill, a memorial from the
Legislature of the State of Missouri on the subject
of the organization of a territory west of that State
was presented to the House by Hon. J. S. Phelps
of Missouri."^ A few weeks later, Mr. Atchison of
Missouri, presented the same memorial in the Sen
ate."^ The memorial argued, in brief, that on the
1844.) On the seventh of January, 1845, an amendatory bill was reported
back to the House by Hon. Aaron V. Brown, of Tennessee, for the Com
mittee on Territories. This bill was referred to the Committee of the
whole House, and was never again called up. — Cong. Globe, xiv, 21, 41,
165, 173. Connelley's Prov. Gov., 22.
130 CoB^. Globe, xviii, 467, 656, 685. Connelley's Prov. Gov., 22.
131 December 20, 1847. House Journal, ist Sess., 30th Cong., 120.
For the legislative history of this memorial, see Missouri House Journal,
1846-47, 428, 461, 476, 488, 492, 495; and Missouri Senate Journal, 1846-
47, 460. 132 January 31, 1848. Senate Journal, ist Sess., 30th Cong., 141. In
each House the memorial was referred to the Committee on Territories.
The memorial had been introduced into the Missouri House by Mr. N. B.
Holden; it passed without serious opposition, and was approved on the

98 THE REPEAL OF
west of Iowa, Missouri, Louisiana and Arkansas,
there lay a territory of unrivaled fertility, amply
sufficient for the formation of five large States, but
then in the possession of a mere handful of Indians.
The memorial, without mentioning the subject of
slavery, urged the extinguishment of Indian titles,
and the organization of a territorial government,
especially for the region directly west of Missouri.
At the opening of the next session of Congress,^"
Mr. Douglas gave notice of a new Nebraska bill, and
also notice of bills for the organization of territorial
governments in Minnesota and New Mexico, all of
which were introduced by him on the twentieth of
December, 1848, and referred to the Committee on
Territories of which he was the chairman. Upon the
Nebraska bill no further action was had. The only
importance attaching to this third bill introduced by
Mr. Douglas within a period of four years consists
in the fact that it was the last Nebraska bill intro
duced by him until he reported the substitute bill of
the twenty-third of January, 1854, repealing the Mis
souri Compromise. ^^'^
During the three years from December, 1848 to
December, 1851, the official records of Congress con-
sixteenth of February, 1847. See the Missouri Republican, October 26,
1853- 133 December 4, 1848; Cong. Globe, xx, i, 68.
134 Douglas's apparent lack of genuine interest in Nebraska is the
more surprising in view of the fact that in the first session of the 32d
Congress several petitions from inhabitants of the States of Illinois and
Indiana for the organization of Nebraska Territory were presented to the
Senate, some of them by Mr. Douglas himself, and referred to the Com
mittee on Territories. — Senate Journal, 190, 330, 345, 478; see also
note 103.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 99
tain no reference to Nebraska territorial government,
and when the silence is finally broken it is not by any
movement on the part of the Illinois Senator but
again by a Representative from the State of Mis
souri. On the eleventh of December, 1851, Hon. Wil
lard P. Hall, a supporter of Atchison, who resided
on the western frontier of Missouri, gave notice of a
bill to organize the Territory of Platte which in
cluded the region later embraced by the terms of the
Kansas-Nebraska bill."' Later in the same session,"*
Hon. David R. Atchison, Senator from Missouri,
presented to the Senate the resolutions and proceed
ings of the Parkville meeting, already mentioned,
urging upon Congress the early organization of a
territorial government in Nebraska.
Early in the second session of the 32d Congress,
which met in December, 1852, we find Mr. Hall of
Missouri again introducing substantially the bill of
the year previous with the name of the proposed
Territory changed from Platte to Nebraska."^ This
bill, as we have seen, passed the House early in
1853 and failed in the Senate only by being post
poned to the last crowded days of the session. Even
before this bill had passed the House, Senator A. C.
Dodge of Iowa had introduced in the Senate a res
olution actually instructing the Committee on Terri
tories of which Mr. Douglas was chairman, "to in-

13S Cong. Globe, xxiv, Pt. i, 80. This notice is all that I have been
able to discover relating to the legislative history of this bill. No action
was had upon it.
136 July 7, 1852; Cong. Globe, xxiv, Pt. ii, i666. Senate Journal,
ist Sess., 32d Cong., 509, 573.
137 December 13, 1852; Cong. Globe, xxvi, 47.

lOO THE REPEAL OF
quire into the expediency of a territorial government
for the country west of Iowa and Missouri and east
of Utah, commonly called Nebraska." The resolu
tion, after consideration by unanimous consent, was
agreed to."*
It is also highly significant that the original of
the Kansas-Nebraska bill in the 33d Congress was
not introduced by the chairman of the Committee on
Territories, who only nine months before had had the
assurance to declare that he had been trying for eight
long years to get such a measure through Congress.
Senator Dodge of Iowa introduced the Nebraska bill
which in the hands of Mr. Douglas finally developed
into the Kansas-Nebraska Act."' In the House a
similar Nebraska bill was introduced by another
Representative from Missouri, Hon. J. G. Miller.""'
These facts connected with the origination of
Nebraska territorial bills are significant because they
show, in the first place, that thq chief interest appear
ing in Congress relative to this topic between Decem
ber, 1848, and January, 1854, is not displayed by the
chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories or
by any other member of that Committee ; and, in the
second place, all the congressional interest in the
subject seems to come from the two States of lowa"^
and Missouri where, as has been shown, a consid-
138 January 17, 1853; Senate Journal, 2d Sess., 32d Cong., loi.
139 Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt. i, i, 44.
140 Ibid., 115, 127.
141 Additional evidence of Iowa's interest in Nebraska as reflected in
the Congressional Globe is given in Chapter VI.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE lOI
erable degree of local interest in the subject had been
aroused by the Pacific railway agitation.^*^
This local interest peculiar to Missouri is also
reflected in the debates on the Nebraska bills in the
32d and 33d Congresses. "Perhaps," said Mr. Atch
ison in March, 1853, "there is not a State in the
Union more deeply interested in this question than
the State of Missouri." "^
"If not the largest," he continued, "I will say the best
portion of that territory, perhaps the only portion of it that in
half a century will become a State, lies immediately west of the
State of Missouri. It is only a question of time whether we will
organize the territory at this session of Congress, or whether we
will do it at the next session  "
During the debate upon the Kansas-Nebraska
bill, Hon. J. W. Lindley, a Representative from Mis
souri, said:^""*
" .... 7 regard it as a matter of the utmost importance
to the people of Missouri that these Territories should be organized
at the earliest possible moment. An organization must be had
before they can be peopled, and the settlement of these territories
must precede that great enterprise of the age, the Pacific railroad.
The Hannibal and St. Joseph road is now in process of construc
tion, and the right of way is asked to extend it west of Missouri.
In my opinion the Pacific road must connect with this road at
its western terminus, and thus, through the very heart of my
district — through the rich agricultural counties of Livingston,
Linn, Macon, and Shelby — will pass the great national thorough-

142 One is therefore justified in dismissing Senator Douglas's state
ment as simply an illustration of the common disposition among politicians
to "claim everything" in sight.
143 Cong. Globe, xxvi, iiii ff. Unless something has been overlooked
unintentionally, the statements in Congress by members from the States
of Iowa and Missouri are the only ones tending to establish the existence
of a strong local interest in the creation of Nebraska Territory.
144 Con^. Globe, xxxi, 797. The italics are mine.

102 THE REPEAL OF
fare uniting the Atlantic with the Pacific, connecting Europe with
India." Returning now to the attitude of Missouri poli
ticians toward the Nebraska territorial movement
which Colonel Benton and the Wyandotts resusci
tated in 1852-53, we have seen that Senator Atchi
son, in conversation with Mr. Guthrie, had been out
spoken in his opposition to the territorial scheme,
avowedly because of the prohibition of slavery in the
proposed Territory. But during the winter of 1852-
53 Senator Atchison's position underwent a change.
He came to a realization of the fact that the people of
western Missouri were strongly in favor of the cre
ation of the new Territory. There was nothing for
him to do, therefore, as a practical politician, but to
accede to the wishes of his constituents, and support
the Nebraska bill, notwithstanding his previous op
position. Accordingly when the bill came up in the
Senate in March, 1853, he made the following frank
explanation of his position:
" . . . . For my own part I acknowledge now, as the
Senator from Illinois well knows, when I came to this city, at
the beginning of the last session, I was perhaps as much opposed
to the proposition as the Senator from Texas [Rusk] now is:
The Senator from Iowa knows it  ^^^ But, sir, I have
upon reflection and investigation in my own mind and from the
opinion of others, my constituents whose opinions I am bound to
respect, come to the conclusion that now is the time for the
organization of this territory 
"[One] reason that I will assign why I opposed this measure,
and why I still think it objectionable in a local point of view, so
145 Cong. Globe, xxvi, iiii ff. From the allusions to Douglas and to
Dodge of Iowa, it would seem as if the subject of Nebraska had at least
been discussed in the session of 1851-52.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 1 03
far as my immediate constituents, the people of western Missouri
are concerned, as well as those of Iowa and Arkansas are con
cerned, is, if you organize the territory of Nebraska and ex
tinguish the Indian title, and let in the white population upon
that territory, it extends our frontiers from seven hundred to one
thousand miles west, and we raise up competition with what we
now have. The states of Iowa and Missouri now have the best
market for all their products. We are an agricultural people,
and for all the products of agriculture we have now as good a
market as any people of the United States, and it grows out of
the frontier trade; food for men, food for oxen, food for mules,
food for everything, which we produce for California, Oregon
and New Mexico. But if we extend this frontier from year to
year competition will increase, and we will be compelled to turn
our agricultural products down the Missouri and the Mississippi
rivers, to the east instead of to the west  The pressure of
population from the older states and from Europe has been such
that they roll up against the frontier, and the most populous
counties in the State of Missouri are upon the western boundary
of that State. In less than three years from this time, the most
populous counties of Iowa will be upon the western border; and
it will be the same case, if it is not now, with the State of Ar
kansas  And why is it so ? Why, sir, the tide of emigration
rolls on until it is stopped by the intercourse laws. Such has
been the case in our State for the last ten years, and I know that
the tide of population has been rolling back upon the interior of
the State. Now, sir, I know very well thatl in a very few years,
if it is not now doing it, the tide of population, in defiance of this
government, will pass the frontier and take possession of every
habitable spot in Nebraska territory; you cannot keep them out.
There is a large portion of our population who are ready and
anxious to abandon their homes to go into this Territory. You
cannot restrain them much longer  "146
After saying that a second reason for his opposi
tion to the bill was that "the Indian title in that Ter-

146 The italics are mine.

I04 THE REPEAL OF
ritory had not been extinguished, or at least a very
small portion of it," Senator Atchison went on to dis
cuss the question of slavery and the Missouri Com
promise in language of no little significance :
"It was my opinion at that time [the opening of the session]
— and I am not now very clear on that subject — that the law
of Congress, when the State of Missouri was admitted into the
Union, excluding slavery from the territory of Louisiana north
of 36° 30', would be enforced in that Territory unless it was
specially rescinded; and, whether that law was in accordance
with the Constitution of the United States or not, it would do
its work, and that work would be to preclude slaveholders from
going into that Territory. But when I came to look into that
question, I found that there was no prospect, no hope of a repeal
of the Missouri Compromise, excluding slavery from that Terri
tory. Now, sir, I am free to admit that at this moment, at this
hour, and for all time to come, I should oppose the organization
or the settlement of that Territory unless my constituents and the
constituents of the whole South, of the slave States of the Union,
could go into it upon the same footing, with equal rights and equal
privileges, carrying that species of property with them as other
people of this Union. Yes, sir, I acknowledge that that would
have governed me, but I have no hope that the restriction will
ever be repealed.
"I have always been of opinion that the first great error com
mitted in the political history of this country was the Ordinance
of 1787, rendering the Northwest Territory free territory. The
next great error was the Missouri Compromise. But they are
both irremediable. There is no remedy for them. We must
submit to them. I am prepared to do it. It is evident that the
Missouri Compromise cannot be repealed. So far as that question
is concerned, we might as well agree to the admission of this
territory now as next year, or five or ten years hence." i''^

147 Senator Atchison then went on to give the additional reason for

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 105
Considerable importance attaches to the por
tion of Mr. Atchison's explanation just quoted.
First, it indicates clearly that prior to March, 1853,
the possibility of the repeal of the Missouri Compro
mise had been seriously considered by him, and it
is fair to infer that not a few others had also "come
to look into that question." Although the statement
is very guarded and incidental, nevertheless, consid
ering the political situation in Missouri and the plans
of Benton's enemies, the phrase is not without sig
nificance.'"^ The leaders of the aggressive slavery
his opposition, based upon economic considerations, which has been given
in an earlier chapter. — Cong. Globe, xxvi, iiii ff.
Speaking of the attitude of the pro-slavery radicals in Missouri to
ward the opening of Nebraska Territory, Judge Price said:
"We were opposed to the opening of any part of the territory of Old
Missouri Territory to settlement, and for many reasons. It had been set
aside as the Indian Country. The Government had removed the Eastern
Indian tribes to that country and covenanted with them that they should
never be molested in their new home. And this was done with a purpose,
for if slavery could not go there we wanted no one there except the
Indians. And there was no necessity for such settlement; millions of acres
of better land were open to settlement in Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas.
"To establish Territories in that country would, we knew, bring up
the subject of slavery, and its admission or exclusion. We were excluded
by the Compromise, but Southern men hoped in some way to bring about
the repeal of that measure in some peaceful manner. Their most cher
ished hope for many years was to look upon the old manner of retaining
the influence of Slave-State and Free-State at a balance in the Union by
the admission of one slave State and one free State when the time for
the admission of any part of that domain was demanded by the economic
conditions of the country. In the meantime we hoped to make four States
of Texas, and to have slavery established in the country obtained from
Spain and Mexico." Reported by Mr. Connelley. See also New York
Tribune, editorial, November 26, 1853; and the Independent, September
25, 1856. 148 The significance of this is also brought out in an editorial in the
New York Tribune, entitled, "Nebraska," November 12, 1853.

Io6 THE REPEAL OF
extension party clearly did not feel that the time was
ripe for the commencement of the struggle in Con
gress for the Repeal. In the second place, the re
marks of Senator Atchison evince, beyond the pos
sibility of mistake, what would be his attitude upon
the question of Repeal if such a movement appeared
feasible. It is only the utter hopelessness of accom
plishing the Repeal that induced him to support this
Nebraska bill with the retention of the Missouri
Compromise restriction. Should circumstances ever
arise which seemed to hold out the faintest hope of
success, he most assuredly would be found in active
support of the Repeal: a fortiori, would he champion
the Repeal if upon it his own political self-preserva
tion seemed to depend. And the course of Benton
in Missouri presently forced him into that position.
With the adjournment of Congress in March,
1853, we are brought to the very threshold of the
campaign which makes the year 1853 memorable
both in state and national history. All the various
elements, factors and issues which were to play im
portant parts in the final struggle over the senatorial
succession in Missouri have now been introduced.
We have seen the original impulse for the or
ganization of Nebraska Territory arising from stra
tegic or military considerations and quickly dying
out. Almost simultaneously with the beginning of
the Missouri dissensions an apparently isolated re
vival of interest in Nebraska appeared in that State.
Another revival followed closely upon Colonel Ben
ton's retirement from the Senate and election to the
House. This revival occurred contemporaneously

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 107
in two different quarters, in such proximity geo
graphically and temporally as to suggest cooperation
or collusion. These movements appear to have con
verged and united at Washington in December, 1852,
and to have been instrumental in effecting the pas
sage of Mr. Hall's Nebraska bill by the House.''*'
Although this bill failed in the Senate, Congress
made an appropriation for the extinguishment of
Indian titles in Nebraska as a preliminary to the
early establishment of a territorial government. By
the close of the year 1852 the Missouri public were
apprised by Colonel Benton of the intimate connec
tion between the creation of the new Territory and
the construction of the Pacific railroad. About the
time of the earlier revival of interest in Nebraska
and when the Missouri dissensions were becoming
acute the Missouri Legislature passed a formal en
dorsement of the Missouri Compromise. Apparent
ly as a rejoinder to this, came the passage of the Jack
son Resolutions followed by the bitter schism in the
Democracy and a political upheaval throughout the
State. It is possible to regard the Jackson Resolu
tions as disguising a purpose or design, at least a dis
position, to abrogate the Missouri Compromise at
some indefinite future time, or at any rate, to justify
its abrogation. Back of all the warring of factions
149 From the evidence at hand it is impossible to determine how much
credit is due respectively to the Missouri source and to the Nebraska source.
In his speech of May 16, 1854, Hon. S. Mayall, a Representative from
Maine, made the following reference to the efforts of Guthrie during the
winter of 1852-53: "In October, 1852, the people of Nebraska elected a
delegate who came to the capital, and as all know who were members
of the last Congress, urged with great zeal the organization of a govern
ment for that Territory." — Con^. Globe, xxxi, 715.

Io8 THE REPEAL OF
and bandying of epithets lay the hope cherished by
Mr. Calhoun's disciples of repealing the Missouri
Compromise at the earliest opportune moment.
Naturally, however, they wished to select that mo
ment themselves, and did not care to have the issue
forced upon them before they were ready. The
question of slavery in the proposed Territory, we
have seen making its first public appearance in the
winter of 1852-53, at which time the two Missouri
Senators, and especially Mr. Atchison, opposed the
creation of the new territorial government. The
latter opposed it avowedly because the slaveholders
of Missouri would be prevented by the Compromise
prohibition from taking their slave property into the
new Territory. It is not difficult to anticipate, from what has
preceded, the attitude which Benton and Atchison
would probably assume in case an issue arose which
involved the retention or the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise in a new Territory west of Missouri.
From the letter of Guthrie, who was in a position to
know, and from the Cape Girardeau county speech
it was perfectly clear that Benton favored the new
territorial project. That he would oppose any at
tempt to repeal the Missouri Compromise was be
yond question. The power of Congress under the
Constitution to exclude slavery from the Territories,
he staunchly upheld. Mr. Atchison, on the other
hand, vigorously denied that Congress had such
power.

CHAPTER IV
The Missouri Senatorial Campaign of 1853-Controversy over
the Legality of "Immediate" Settlement in Nebraska-Atchison
is Forced to Champion the Repeal.
We are now prepared to enter upon the stirring
events of the summer and autumn of 1853, and to
see how circumstances combined to produce condi
tions out of which emerged the suggestion for the re
peal of the Missouri Compromise in connection with
the Nebraska territorial bill in 1854.
Of what had been taking place in Missouri dur
ing the winter of 1852-53 when both the State Legis
lature and Congress were in session, we have almost
no detailed information. The winter had scarcely
passed when hostilities between the old factions were
vigorously renewed.
¦ Although the Legislature which would choose
Senator Atchison's successor would not be elected un
til the summer of 1854, the spring of 1853 was none
too early to commence the life and death struggle be
tween the factions which for eight years had been
contending for the supremacy. Shortly before the
adjournment of the Legislature on the twenty-fourth
of February, 1853, Colonel Benton announced that
he would be "in the field for reelection to the Senate
of the United States at the next regular session" of

no THE REPEAL OF
the General Assembly^'" Not long after this,'" the
Jefferson Inquirer sounded the clarion call to battle
in an editorial entitled, "A WORD TO THE DEMO
CRATS," in which all "sound" Democrats were urged
to awake and prepare for the contest to replace Ben
ton in the Senate. The challenge was soon formally
accepted by Senator Atchison who joined issue in no
equivocal terms: "I will cheerfully surrender my
seat in the United States Senate to any honest and
sound Democrat. But I can never willingly surren
der it to Colonel Benton." "^
There were those who scented the impending
battle from afar. "Mr. Benton will take a position
of antagonism to the Missouri division of the Admin
istration party," wrote the Washington Correspond
ent of the New York Courier.^^^
"He is going home to engage in a contest against organiza
tions, against the State convention, caucuses, ^^* and other ma
chinery by which the leaders there are seeking to protect themselves
against the force of his individual will, eloquence and energy.
Mr. Benton is resolved to procure the reversal of that decision
against his famous 'Appeal' in 1 85 1 which sent Mr. Geyer to the
Senate in his place. To this end he means to enter upon a can
vass of the State for the election of a majority of unpledged and
independent Democratic candidates to the Legislature, in order
to oust Mr. Atchison from the Senate and get himself in. In this
150 This appears from a portion of a letter of Colonel Benton quoted
in an address of certain Democratic members of the Legislature to their
constituents. See National Intelligencer, March 10, 1853.
151 April 9, 1853.
152 Missouri Republican, June 22, 1853.
153 Quoted in the Missouri Sentinel, March 24, 1853.
154 Benton's "hatred of dictation was such that he would never attend
a caucus of any kind." — Rogers's Benton, 318.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE in
work he well knows that he must expect the opposition and not
the aid of the Administration." i55
With surprising accuracy, the Correspondent
then added this prediction of the outcome:
"But with all his resources and his indomitable resolution and
his strongly versatile and active mind, the old Senator will be
beaten and will die disappointed and disconsolate. Party discipline
will overcome even such as he."
"There can be no mistaking the signs of the
times," began an editorial forecast and review of the
press alignment a few weeks later.'^^
"A fiercer war is about to be waged between the Benton
and Democratic factions in this State than has ever been known.
The newspapers as well as the politicians have taken sides and all
seem ready for the fray. Colonel Benton, so far as we have
observed, has only two papers arrayed in his support, the St. Louis
Democrat and the Jefferson Inquirer. They are to be reenforced
by the Gazette at St. Joseph under a new editor (L. J. Eaton).
On the other side there is the Examiner at Jefferson City, the
Chronicle at Lexington, the Northeastern Reporter at Canton, the
Banner at Glasgow, the Chronicle at Bloomington, the Hannibal
Courier, we believe, and one of the papers at Springfield 
It is going to be a great fight, and whatever party triumphs a
goodly number will be left dead on the field."

155 This break with the Administration seeras to have occurred some
time in the summer of 1853. The immediate occasion, in brief, seems to
have been the ignoring of the Benton faction and the recognition of
Atchison, in the distribution of Federal patronage, especially in the ap
pointment of an anti-Bentonite as postmaster at St. Louis. So incensed
was Benton at this, that he immediately made arrangements for the trans
mission and delivery of all his correspondence by express, and gave public
notice of this arrangement in the leading newspapers in the State. See
New York Tribune, August 30, 1853.
156 The Missouri Republican, April 15, 1853. The Republican was a
Whig organ. During the early part of the campaign of 1853 it maintained
a neutral position very well; but as the campaign waxed hotter, it became
more antagonistic toward Benton, although at all times it was free from
the passion and partisanship of its Democratic contemporaries.

112 THE REPEAL OF
Apparently the months of March and April,
1853, were passed by the politicians in quietly mak
ing their plans and perfecting their machines. The
"Antis," if one may believe the Jefferson Inquirer,
were "playing a desperate game to beat Colonel Ben
ton for the Senate," and were "manifesting a zeal
worthy of a better cause," leaving "no means untried
for accomplishing their purposes." ^" It was not
until May, when Colonel Benton had returned to
Missouri, that the letter-writing and speech-making
began in earnest.
Eagerly did the Bentonites seize upon the fact
that David R. Atchison, one of the most pronounced
opponents of the exclusion of slavery from the Ter
ritories, after strenuously opposing the Nebraska bill,
had, nevertheless, come around finally to its support.
Upon it they predicated repeated and elaborate
charges of the grossest inconsistency and utmost un
reliability. The Jefferson Inquirer, the staunchest
and most influential of the Benton newspapers, in an
editorial entitled, "ATCHISON VS. ATCHISON," re
minded its readers of the emphatic language which
Atchison had used to Guthrie upon the subject, and
proceeded to excoriate Mr. Atchison in the follow
ing terms : ^^®
"The dead duck, having caved in and renigged upon the
fundamental position of anti-Bentonism, to wit, that Congress has
no power to legislate upon slavery in the territories, and having
by his death-bed and post-mortem adhesion to the Nebraska terri
torial bill explicitly acknowledged such power in Congress, and
actually sanctioned its abolition in all the upper Louisiana territory
157 Issue of April 27, 1853.
158 Issue of May 21, 1853.

TIIE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 113
north of .U>" .U">', it becomes useful to look into some of his
previous pledges on the subject to soc that oitlu-r now in admitting
the power, or formerly in denying it, he lias boon a hypocrite and
doublc-dealor, oitlior fnlso to the people of Mi.ssouri to whom hc
owes rospoct .iiul gr:ititude, or f:dso to the Constitution of the
United States which ho is under o:ith to support.
"It will bo romcmhorod that in 1849 Mr. Atcliison published
a letter on the subject of tho nullific:ition rosohitions, the funda-
niontid ono of which and wiiich was tho b:\sis of :ill the rest,
denied tho sinuo power to Coiisiress and made its oxorciso a cause
of dissolution of the Union. In that K-ttor thus published there
occurs among nuuiy similar p:issagos tho following:
" 'Coiigioss can no moro constitutionally prohibit tlio slave
holder troui Missouri fiom settling in tho Territories of the
United Stiitos with his shivos, than tho Rhode Ishiniior with his
nwcliiiUMy. or tho Alothodist, Prosb\rori.in, Turk or Mormon
with his voligion. It is in vain to hopo tliat this question [con
cerning the power of Congress to legislate upon slavery in tho
Territories] can be compromised or in any way satisfactorily set
tled witlunit united and determined rosistanco. In conclusion,
fellow citi/oiis, I will say that as Senator I will oppose all lo^is-
lation of Congress which hsis for its object an intovtoroiico with
the domestic institutions, or sr///i7; will prrfcnl nny ritizcii of a
sltwf Si,itr from rmigmtin.!: to the Territories of the Viiitrd
States uith his simrs.' '5»
"The way ho talked anil sworo at the same time was aw ful
to hear. A favorite form ot sweariii!:: with him thon was this:
"I would soo the United States split into as many parts as there
are ciniiuios in the L'nion before I would see tho AVilmot Proviso
passed, or any act done by Congress, which would sanction the
expulsion of slavery from any territory or prevent our southern
bnrthron from going with their slaves to any land gained by the
coramon blood and tn-asure."
".•\t many times hc sworo he would be 'tarred and feathered,'
"would be hangrd and tiuartcred,' 'would be torn to picves by w ild
horses hitched to each arm and leg," 'that hc would resign and
'•^•^ The italics are mine.

114 THE REPEAL OF
quit the State,' before he would ever submit to such a violation of
the Constitution, and such an 'insult' to the South, as the exclusion
of slavery from any Territory of the United States would be.
"In that way he continued swearing for about the space of
three years and nine months, viz., from the spring of 1849 to the
winter of 1852-53, at which latter time he still swore thus to
Mr. Abelard Guthrie of Nebraska: 'I had rather see the whole
Territory sunk in hell, than to see it organized as free territory!'
"Thus the brave Davy Atchison spoke and swore for the
space of near four years, and until after the Nebraska bill, despite
the traitorous and clandestine opposition of Phelps and Atchison,
and the cold and silent opposition of Geyer, had passed the House
of Representatives and had been favorably reported by the Com
mittee of the Senate and until after it had been killed by the
criminal delay to call it up; after all that and without regard to
his four years swearing, and for the purpose of deceiving his con
stituents, he 'renigged,' 'caved-in,' jumped the fence, abandoned
all his principles in relation to the powers of Congress in abolishing
it in as much territory as would make fourteen large States. ..."
The two subjects upon which public interest
focused in the campaign of 1853 were the railroad
to the Pacific and the early organization of Nebraska
Territory involving the question of slavery. Over
these topics arose the main issues of that memorable
campaign. "Slavery Whigs and Slavery Democrats
were on one side ; those favoring the continuation of
the Compromise being on the other, almost to the
disregard of party lines, especially toward the close
of the contest." ^^°

160 Judge Price, as reported by Mr. Connelley. Judged by his re
marks in the Senate, March 3, 1853, it seems probable that Senator Atchi
son had not been kept fully informed of the growth of a strong sentiment
in the western part of the State favorable to the immediate repeal of the
Compromise which apparently had developed rapidly after he had left the
State in the preceding November. At any rate that sentiment did not
appear to him in March to be of strength sufficient to warrant his advocat
ing the Repeal in Congress.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 115
Benton soon visited the western counties which
formed Atchison's political "stamping ground"^**
and found the inhabitants of that section of the State
feverish to get over the river into the rich lands of
Nebraska.^" In their eagerness he perceived the
opportunity bf making much-needed political capital
for himself, at the expense of his rival. By advo
cating the immediate occupation of Nebraska by
white people and by pledging himself to champion
the territorial measure before the next Congress, he
would stand an excellent chance of transferring from
Atchison to himself the political allegiance of the
populous frontier counties.
Thus to carry the war boldly into Africa ap
pealed with irresistible force to a politician of Ben
ton's extraordinary aggressiveness. It mattered little
that during his thirty years as Senator he had never
exhibited any active interest in opening Nebraska
to settlement. It was much more to his present pur
pose to make it appear that Atchison, although for
some years chairman of the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs, had totally neglected the interests of
his immediate constituents in paying no attention to
the treaties by which the desirable lands in Nebraska
had been assigned to the Indians, with a view to the
possible opening of those lands to the occupation of
161 Atchison resided in Platte City from 1841 to 1856; Paxton's Annals,
833- 162 Hemp-raising by slave labor was becoming an important industry
in western Missouri, and it was known to the people of that region that
lands equally good for hemp-raising lay in adjacent parts of Nebraska. —
Paxton's Annals, 63 ff; Missouri Republican, June 23, 1854; John A.
Parker's What Led to the War (see Appendix D) ; the Independent,
September 25, 1856.

II 6 THE REPEAL OF
Missourians. Every one knew that Atchison had
been strongly opposed to the Nebraska bill in the ses
sion of Congress just ended, and only with the utmost
reluctance had finally brought himself to its support.
With almost equal ease it could be proved that he
had made no effectual attempt so to construe existing
Indian treaties and Acts of Congress as to authorize
the immediate occupation of Nebraska lands by
white people. Mr. Atchison might thus be placed
under the initial disadvantage of having to act on the
defensive. Benton on the other hand could boldly
assert that as long as Atchison remained in the Senate
and Benton remained out of it, there was no prospect
of the early opening of Nebraska to settlement.
Colonel Benton's first move in the execution of
this plan of campaign appeared in May, 1853. Some
of his Democratic friends among the citizens of Cole
county had invited him to speak to them upon the
subject of "the great road to the Pacific." In ac
cepting their invitation '" he availed himself of the
opportunity to announce a new and startling proposi
tion concerning the right of white people to settle in
Nebraska even before the establishment of a terri
torial government:
"Gentlemen : When I return to Missouri I shall do myself
the pleasure to comply with your invitation and speak to you on
the subject which you mention, that of the great road to the
Pacific  But my design in this answer to your letter is to
speak to a practical point, and to remove some errors in relation
to Indian titles on the line of the road west of Missouri and which
were not cleared up in the debates on the Nebraska bill at the
last session of Congress. It seemed to be taken for granted that
163 Dated May 3, 1853 ; in the Jefferson Inquirer, June 6, 1853.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE II7
the whole country out to the Rocky Mountains was covered by
Indian titles. Not so the fact, only a small part of it:^^* the
case is this. Near thirty years ago the United States extinguished
the Indian titles to all this country, Indians retaining small reser
vations and the rest being intended for emigrating tribes, of which
only a small part (directly west of Missouri) had been allotted
to them. The Pawnees relinquished all their title south of the
Great Platte, and this went up to the Rocky Mountains, they
taking a reservation on the north side of the river. The Kansas
relinquished all as far as they claimed to the head of the Kansas
river, and to the division ground between the Kansas and Arkansas
rivers. The Osages ceded all the country on both sides of the
Arkansas and out to Red river. Out of this cession the Kansas
Indians received a strip thirty miles wide on the Kansas river,
running above the junction of the Republican and Smoky Hill
forks, but including very little of these forks; and the Osages
reserved a parallelogram on the Arkansas nearly opposite the
southwest corner of the State. The Shawnees and Delawares had
strips assigned them adjoining the Kansas reservation on the north
and south, and half a dozen fragments of tribes had small assign
ments, some on the Missouri line south of the Kansas and some
on the river north, and none running far back.
"The reservations and assignments west of Missouri comprise
a part of the great territory acquired from the Pawnees, Kansas
and Osages; further south the Cherokees, Creeks and Choctaws
have it all; but west from Missouri the large purchase remains
more than three-fourths United States territory where citizens
may settle without interfering with Indian rights. The boundaries
of the Indian lands can be easily ascertained as they lie in the
eastern part of the great territory near to our own settlements.
All the lands not included in these reservations and grants are

164 The italics in this letter are Benton's. These assertions concerning
the immediate right of white men to enter and settle in Nebraska even
before the establishment of a territorial government were reiterated by
Colonel Benton in a letter to C. F. Holly of Savannah, dated May 15, 1853,
replying to an invitation to speak in that locality, and in speeches delivered
at Kansas City, Weston and Independence in the course of the next few
months. — The Missouri Republican, May 17 and June 22, 1853.

Il8 THE REPEAL OF
United States territory and in two places it comes down to our
own boundary: one between the Osages' reservation and the re
serves and grants on the Kansas, and covers the upper waters of
the Neosho and Osage, and part of the Smoky Hill fork; the
other, on the north of the Kickapoo grant. West of the different
Indian grants and reserves all is open out to the mountains. This
includes fine country, the whole course of the Upper Arkansas,
nearly the whole of the Smoky Hill and Republican forks, with
the Vermillion and all the southern waters of the Platte, and
embracing land as fine as any in Missouri and valuable from
its locality. The present Santa Fe Road goes through it after
emerging from the Shawnee grant and the great Pacific railway,
if it takes the Central route, will traverse it from one end to the
other, from the Missouri frontier to the head of the Huerfano
about half way to California, all rich land and the country so
broad and open that the engineer might take his course for the
road by compass as a ship takes her course at sea. Thus three-
fourths of the country which lies west of the Missouri frontier
out to the Rocky Mountains is free from Indian title; and from
its beauty, fertility, salubrity, and geographical position must
speedily attrstct the preemptor and cultivator.
"Considering the settlement of this country as intimately
connected with the location, construction and support of the great
central railroad, I have taken the trouble to examine maps and
treaties to verify these statements of Indian lands and United
States territory west of our State; and with a view to show
where settlements can be made without infringing on Indian
rights. There is territory there open to settlement enough to
make a great State, in a temperate climate, much of it fertile and
on the straight course to San Francisco. Both the Kansas and
the upper Arkansas are rich and beautiful, and as high up as the
Pueblos, far above Bent's Fort, good crops are raised and stock
provides for itself winter as well as summer, without food or
shelter from their owners.
"There was a great objection to the Nebraska bill last winter
in Congress because the territory had but few inhabitants. That
objection need to apply no longer, and the hardy pioneer, that

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 119
meritorious citizen whose enterpri.se, courage and industry is worth
so much to his country should lose no time in commencing his
preemption settlement.
"Respectfully your obliged fellow citizen,
"Tmom,as H. Benton."
With the publication of the Cole county letter
a heated controversy immediately arose between Sen
ator Atchison and Colonel Benton regarding the
legality of immediate settlement in Nebraska. The
Weston Reporter inquired of Mr. Atchison whether,
in his opinion, any portion of Nebraska was then
open to legal settlement by white men. To this in
quiry he replied in a speech delivered at Weston,
Missouri, on the eleventh of June, 1853. He then
said : '"'
"The Act of 18.H to logulato the intercourse with the Indians
and to preserve peace upon tho frontiers declared that territory
to be Iiiiliiin territory, and forbade its occupation by white men,
except only officers and men in the government employ, traders
there by special permission, and white men who may have married
among Indians. It is the duty of military ofHcers and Indian
Agents to prevent white settlers from locating in the territory."
"In consequence of this contradiction and not
because it contradicted" him, "but was calculated to
do great injury to the people" of the State, Benton
applied to the Department of the Interior at Wash-
1*5 This speech at Weston seems to have been substantially the same
in other respects as one delivered b\' Atchison at Platte City live days before.
An editorial in the Missouri Republican of June 8 thus referred to these
speeches: "Senator Atchison. This gentleman is in the field making
his appeal to the people of Missouri. We learn that he was to address
the people at PLitte City on Saturday last; and that on S.iturd.iy next he
will speak at \\'eston. The principal topic of his speeches, we are given
to understand, will be 'Nebraska' and 'the Road to India.' Public curiosity
will be excited to hear what he has to say on these heads." The speeches
are reported in the Missouri Republican, June 22, 1853.

I20 THE REPEAL OF
ington for information "which being official may
defy contradiction from any quarter." ^^* On the
second of July, he sent a map to Mr. Mix, Chief
Clerk of the Department of the Interior, and with it
this note : "'' "C. St., July 2.
"Mr. Mix, Dear Sir,
"Please have the western boundary line of Missouri laid down
on this map and the outline of the Pawnee, Kansas and Osage
Purchases, and the reservations as they now stand within that out
line. You need not show each purchase but the outline of the
whole. Yours truly,
"Thomas H. Benton."
On the eighth the map was returned to Colonel
Benton accompanied by the following note from the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs:
"Department of the Interior,
"Office Indian Affairs, July 8, 1853.
"Sir: "Agreeably to your request of the 2d instant I have the honor
to return herewith the map you sent to this office with an outline
colored green of the Pawnee, Kansas and Osage purchases lying
west of the Missouri line marked thereon. The several tracts
of country that have been reserved or ceded to various Indian
tribes within the territory purchased, as also those situated imme
diately north and bordering thereon are respectively designated
in varied colors, which it is hoped will answer the purpose of
your request. Very respectfully your obedient servant,
"George W. Manypenny, Comr.
"Hon. Thomas H. Benton, C. St.,
"Washington, D. C." i^s

166 Xhe phrases quoted are from Benton's Monroe county letter.
167 Published in the Missouri Republican, September 16, 1853.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 121
Col. Benton wrote another letter to his con
stituents between the eighth and thirtieth of July '*'
in which he explains in greater detail than in his
Cole county letter his views of the state of the laws
and treaties relating to the Nebraska country. This
letter, clearly intended for publication, was addressed
to the citizens of Monroe County in response to an
invitation to visit the county and address the people
on "the great subject of the day, that of a railroad to
the Pacific Ocean." "Connected with this road," he
repeated, "and as one of the facilities for making it
is the desirable object of settling the country west of
Missouri out to New Mexico and Utah; and I have
the gratification to inform you," he adds, " . . . .
that there is nothing in the state of our Indian rela
tions to prevent it." He again presented in detail
the nature and extent of the cessions and reservations
made by the Indians in the region west of Missouri,
and alluded to the fact that he had sent the map
mentioned above "to be engraved and published for
the public information," claiming that it supported
his main contention. Finally, after having present
ed these points, he reached a conclusion which in
volved an admission eagerly seized upon by Mr.
Atchison :
"I therefore consider the cessions of 1825 and 1833 from the
Kansas and Osages and Pawnees (so far as they have not been
reserved or ceded to the Indians) to be like any other lands to
168 This letter appeared in the Missouri Republican, September 16,
1853- 169 I have been unable after a lengthy search to discover the exact date
of this letter but feel certain that it must have been written between the
dates mentioned.

122 THE REPEAL OF
which the Indian title has been extinguished, that is to say. United
States lands; and although there are acts of Congress forbidding
settlement or cutting timber on the United States land, yet we all
know that all such acts were passed when our land policy was
less liberal than it is now and that they are a dead letter on the
books and that all such settlers get preemption rights in one hun
dred and sixty acres, instead of being dragooned by the military
and sued by the Government."
Near the close of the letter Benton could not
resist the temptation to have a thrust at Atchison and
the rest of the Missouri delegation in Congress :
"I consider it very unfortunate that no person in Congress
knew the condition of the western territory when the Nebraska
bill was under discussion last winter. If any one had known it
and merely sent a note to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs,
asking to have the Indian reservations and grants marked off it
would have put an end to all the lamentations about the violation
of Indian rights with which the two Houses were so incontinently
entertained and would have put an end to all objections to the
Nebraska territory, except the true one which is the Compromise
line of 1820. Next winter they will be met with the map and
all their Indian tears will be dried up." i'°
The joy of the Benton newspapers in the State
over what they regarded as the complete humiliation
170 In Jefferson Inquirer, August 13, 1853. The italics are mine. The
Savannah (Mo.) Sentinel, looking upon the Monroe county letter as a
complete humiliation of Atchison, closes a long exultation with the follow
ing grandiloquent paragraph: "When Nebraska shall be settled, the way
will have been prepared by Benton for the rise of that future 'central
star' of the famed 'Constellation.' When the central route shall be located,
it is to Benton, his facts, his labors, his efforts, that Missouri and Nebraska,
twin sisters in position and destiny, will owe it that they shall become the
enterport[sic] of the world's trade, the storehouse of the world's wealth
and the garden spot for its supplies. When that grand highway itself
shall have been completed, the bust that shall grace the tallest peak of
the Rocky Mountains, next to Columbus, will be that of Benton, looking
like that renowned navigator, westward for the East, towards India!"
Quoted in the Jefferson Inquirer, August, 20, 1853.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 1 23
of Atchison, knew no bounds. "Benton's triumph
is complete," said the St. Louis Evening News,"^
"and Atchison's, disgrace is unlimited."
"For ten years," continued the same paper, "Atchison was
chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs and living in sight
of Nebraska for many years longer, and yet he was wholly ignorant
of the condition and proprietorship of that country! But in his
ignorance he stood up before the world and disowned it as the
property of the United States! What a humiliation for him to
be thus shown up before the people of Missouri whom he mis
represents so outrageously by his opposition to Nebraska! Let
him resign and hide himself in shame, Vice-president though he
be. His ignorance is discreditable to the State and the positions
he has held  All honor to Benton ! . . . ."
To the various positions assumed by Benton in
the Cole county and Monroe county letters. Senator
Atchison replied in speeches at Parkville '^^ on the
sixth of August and at Fayette in November.'" He
took up in detail each of the Indian treaties, cessions
and reservations and the Acts of Congress referred
to by Benton, and endeavored to refute Benton's in
terpretation of them.
In the course of his reply at Parkville, Atchison
inquired: "Is it not strange, fellow citizens, if Colonel Benton is right
in his opinion thus expressed that the discovery has for the first
time been made by him within the last few months? Is it not
strange that all the country within the bounds of Nebraska has
been deemed and treated as Indian country by our Government
and by our citizens? But now all at once our old Senator has
broken out, as we may say, 'in a fresh place.' He has found a

171 Quoted in Jefferson Inquirer, July 30, 1853.
172 Reported in the Missouri Republican, August 31, 1853.
173 Reported in the Jefferson Inquirer, November 14, 1853.

124 THE REPEAL OF
'mare's nest.' But now in what I have said I have done one
Gen. Sutherland (commonly called 'Old Nebraska') an injustice;
who, as I am informed, was among you a year or two since beat
ing up recruits to settle Nebraska, declaring that this country
which will be designated on Col. Benton's map, was open for
settlement. But you declared the man crazy; and the officers of
the Government threatened him with the penalties of the law.
But now all is changed. I do not mention Sutherland's name for
the purpose of depriving Col. Benton of the glory of being the
discoverer of this new doctrine. Col. Benton admits that there
are acts of Congress forbidding settlement on the United States
lands. But he says they are a dead letter on the statute books.
Now this I deny, not for the purpose of 'contradicting' him but
because he is mistaken, for the laws are every day enforced by
the courts. I will not say that he is either ignorant or perverse.
I also deny that any persons can under any law of Congress obtain
a preemption right by settling on any land in Nebraska. I deny
that Col. Benton's map proves anything for him. His position is
that there is territory in Nebraska open for settlement by white
men. I deny it. He may be right and I may be wrong 
Instead of calling upon the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for
the map, why did he not simply ask him or the Secretary of the
Interior for his opinion whether any country west of Missouri
or Iowa could under the existing laws and treaties be settled by
white men? If so, what country? This would have settled the
whole matter with me and would have been more satisfactory to
our people who desire to emigrate to Nebraska."
Atchison then went on to say that the day after
he had read Benton's Monroe county letter he ad
dressed a letter to the Secretary of the Interior re
questing an official expression of opinion whether any
portion of the Nebraska Territory was then open to
settlement by white men, and if so, what portion.
"If the Secretary," said Atchison, "can consistently with his
duty answer me then the question is settled  I expect an
answer in a few weeks  I have no pride of opinion in the

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 1 25
matter. I care not whether Col. Benton should be right or
wrong. Indeed I rather hope that he may be right. Many of
our citizens are anxious to get into that country. I trust that
they may be gratified. But Col. Benton says that the opinion I
expressed dissenting from him was calculated 'to do great injury
to the people of the State.' Now I do not see how my opinion
could do the least injury to the people of the State. If they act
upon it, they can sustain no injury whether I be right or wrong.
But if they act upon Col. Benton's opinion and he should be
mistaken in the law, then they will sustain great injury, for it is
no small matter for a poor man to leave his home and travel hun
dreds of miles into the Indian country and then be driven
back  "
Atchison's letter of inquiry, dated August 3, was
referred by the Secretary of the Interior to the Com
missioner of Indian Affairs for reply. That official
on the sixteenth of August, sent a long communica
tion to Senator Atchison.'^* Omitting its lengthy

174 Printed in the Missouri Republican, August 26, 1853. The italics
are mine. In his speech at Fayette, Mo., in November, 1853, Atchison is re
ported to have asserted, "that Manypenny's letter was shown to the
Cabinet and contains the views of the Administration and was deemed
of such importance lest the false views of Benton should have a deleterious
influence that it was published in the organ of the Administration on the
evening of the same day upon which it was written  " — From
report of his speech in Jefferson Inquirer, November 14, 1853. See Atchi
son's letter, December 21, 1853, in Washington Daily Union, December
23. 1853- It may be interesting to see the way in which a leading Benton organ
viewed the letter of Manypenny to Atchison. The following is taken from
an editorial in the St. Joseph Gazette of September 24: ". . . . This
letter deserves passing notice. It is true as Mr. Manypenny insists, that
no part of Nebraska strictly speaking is open to settlement, but he is en
tirely wrong we apprehend in supposing that it is illegal to settle in
Nebraska because of the Indian intercourse act. That act forbids settle
ment only on Indian land. But it is an abuse of language to call these
Indian lands to which the Indian title is extinguished. The old act of
1807 which Col. Benton well called obsolete is the only law in the way of
the whites settling on the public lands of Nebraska. But Mr. Manypenny

126 THE REPEAL OF
narrative of the dealings of the Government with the
various Indian tribes, it is sufficient to quote the con
cluding paragraphs which may be regarded as offi
cially deciding the points in dispute between Atchi
son and Benton.
"In view of the interest which appears to be taken in this
subject in the West and of the importance therefore of a proper
understanding of it, I have extended this communication beyond

insists that the Indians have the right to hunt on all the lands in Nebraska.
Here again he is wrong. The vast majority of public lands in Nebraska
were purchased from the Kansas and Osage Indians. In the treaties with
these tribes no provision concerning the Indians hunting on the lands ceded
to the United States is found, and even the provision referred to by Mr.
Manypenny in the Pawnee treaty is one that can at any time be annulled
by the President.
"Mr. Manypenny's letter, however, contains one statement of value to
those who wish to settle in the territory of Nebraska. He admits that the
New York Indians have no title to the lands in Nebraska which had been
set apart for thera. These lands containing several million acres, are
contiguous to the State of Missouri. If Mr. Manypenny is right, then
there is a large tract of country in Nebraska, south of the Missouri river,
and adjoining our State, which is at this very time subject to settlement.
.... The treaty of 1838 requires them to settle on the lands in Nebraska
within five years from the date thereof, or forfeit their right to the same.
The five years have long ago elapsed and according to the letter of the
treaty the New York Indians have no right to any part of the Nebraska
territory. Whether the Government should enforce the treaty with this
degree of strictness we are not prepared to say. The lands set apart for
the New York Indians between the Missouri and Kansas rivers and the
southern line of the State of Missouri contain 1,824,000 acres, or 1850
square miles, nearly the size of the Platte Purchase  " — In Jefferson
Inquirer, September 24, 1853.
It would be interesting, but would consume too much space, to compare
these different claims with the facts as stated in Miss Anna H. Abel's
thesis entitled, "Indian Reservations in Kansas and the Extinguishment of
their Title," in Kansas Hist. Soc. Trans., viii, 72 ff. The same volume also
contains a table of various Indian reservations in Kansas Territory, with
the area of each, and outline maps showing reservations in 1846 and in
1856. The guarantee clauses in the Indian treaties mentioned in
these discussions are quoted in the speech of Howard of Texas, February'
10, 1853 ; Cong. Globe, xxvi, 556.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 127
the ordinary limits of a letter, and although prepared during a
pressure of business, I have confidence in the narrative of facts
which it embodies, and from which I am not able to say to you
that any portion of the country within the limits of the proposed
Territory of Nebraska is in such condition that the white man
can lawfully occupy it for settlement.
"Congress at its last session authorized the President to treat
with the Indian tribes located along the western boundary of
Iowa and Missouri and for the purpose of extinguishing their
title in whole or in part to the country they now occupy and
measures are in progress to effect that object.
"Whatever differences of opinion may exist on the question,
you have propounded, it is confidently expected that no action
will be taken by any portion of the people which will embarrass
the Government in the contemplated negotiations with the Indians.
"Very respectfully your obedient servant,
"George W. Manypenny, Commissioner.
"Hon. D. R. Atchison, Platte City, Mo."
It was now the turn of the newspapers friendly
to Atchison to exult. Said one of the more mod
erate : "^
"A more decided victory could not be obtained by one indi
vidual over another than Atchison has achieved in this controversy.
. . . . It is suggested that Colonel Benton's map of the Nebraska
Territory will be at a very considerable discount in this State after
seeing Colonel Manypenny's history of the legislation of Congress
in regard to the Indian territory."
In the interval between the writing of the Mon-
175 The Missouri Republican, August 26, 1853. After the appearance
of this correspondence the Missouri Republican (Sept. 17, 1853) made this
comment: "The note of Col. Benton of July 2 asking for the map is a
remarkable specimen of ostrich diplomacy. . . . This note has hitherto
been suppressed though he published Col. Manypenny's reply to it. Having
stuck his own head in the bush, he hoped to conceal his design and entrap
the Commissioner into furnishing a map to go forth without official ex
planations; he thought he would be allowed to use it and nobody would
see the trick. But the Commissioner has been after him and has pretty
completely stripped him of his plumes."

128 THE REPEAL OF
roe county letter and the Manypenny letter of
August 1 6, the map referred to in Benton's corres
pondence was published and offered for sale. Short
ly after the writing of his letter of the sixteenth.
Colonel Manypenny visited the Indian tribes located
in Nebraska and while there a copy of Benton's map
was brought to his notice. He thereupon immed
iately addressed the following communication to the
Independence (Missouri) Reporter:^''^
"Indian Country, Sept. 7, 1853.
"To the Editor of the Independence Reporter: Sir:
"A friend has just placed in my hands a map of a portion
of the country west of Iowa, Missouri, and Arkansas which has
the following title:
" ^Official Map of the Indian Reservations in Nebraska Ter
ritory Drawn by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs at the Request
of Colonel Benton and Published to Show the Public Lands
in the Territory Subject to Settlement.' 1^^
"This map appears to have been lithographed by 'Jules
Hutawa,' St. Louis; and the title is well calculated to deceive the
reader, for which reason I deem it my duty to say that no such
map was ever drawn in the Indian Office by me for any such pur
pose; ''* and further I deem it my duty to say that in my opinion
there is not any land in Nebraska Territory subject at this time
to lawful settlement.
"Colonel Benton did send to the Indian Department a map
of the United States and the Territories with the request that the
outline of certain Indian purchases should be laid down on it,
with the Indian reservations within the outline, which was done;
176 This letter appeared in the Missouri Republican, September 17,
1853. See also New York Tribune, November 7, 1853, quoting the Wash
ington Star.
177 These italics are Manypenny's. My efforts to obtain a copy of
this map have been unsuccessful. Indeed I have been unable to ascertain
that a copy is in existence.
178 These italics are mine.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 129
but the question as to the views of the office in relation to the right
to settle Nebraska was not asked.
"Accompanying this letter I send you a copy of Colonel
Benton's note to the Indian Office transmitting his map and my
reply when the work was done and the map returned. It will
be seen that there is not a word said about the settlement of
Nebraska. You will please insert them in your paper with this
letter. "The publication of this map has done Colonel Benton and
the Indian Office great injustice and the 'Official Map' for the
purpose intended by him is unworthy of credit and ought not to be
purchased or circulated.
"Very respectfully your obedient servant,
"George W. Manypenny,
"Commissioner of Indian Affairs."
Into the details of this controversy over the
status of Indian lands in Nebraska and the right of
white men to settle there in the absence of further
legislation, it is unnecessary to go further. In the
present connection the controversy is important for
four main reasons. In the first place, it tends to
prove that the subject of organizing a territorial
government in Nebraska was forced to the front in
the Missouri campaign of 1853, not by the pro-
slavery following of Atchison, but by the free-soil
element in the Missouri Democracy led by Colonel
Benton. In the next place it is another indication
of Colonel Benton's eagerness to crush Atchison and
of the extreme to which he was willing to go in order
to accomplish that end. In the third place, back of
the purely selfish motives by which Benton was un
questionably moved, it is possible to discern a motive
born of his free-soil sympathies and his antipathy to
slavery extension. The subject of the early repeal

130 THE REPEAL OF
of the Missouri Compromise had become so bruited
about among the politicians by the early part of the
summer of 1853 that Benton was undoubtedly aware
of what his enemies ultimately hoped to achieve in
this particular. He may have reasoned that they
were unprepared to take up the fight for the Repeal,
and that by forcing the settlement of Nebraska at the
earliest possible moment, even at the cost of a very
loose interpretation of existing statutes, the move
ment for the Repeal might be killed in its infancy,
and a new State consecrated to Freedom. Finally,
the controversy had the effect of arousing or stimu
lating a certain, or rather an uncertain, degree of
active and aggressive interest among Missourians in
the opening of the new Territory to white settlement.
Upon the latter point a few words more need to be
added. If we may believe the statements of an ardent
Benton paper, multitudes eagerly accepted Benton's
interpretation of the law respecting settlement in
Nebraska. The organ referred to said in November,
1853:^^^ "We have the best of authority for saying that the emigra
tion to Nebraska is surprisingly great. Trains of wagons may
be seen from day to day advancing upon that Territory. The
knowledge of its genial climate and fertile soil which has been
widely diffused through the agency of Colonel Benton and the
press is now producing its legitimate results  It is not alone
from Missouri the columns proceed which are debouching on
Nebraska. Kentucky and other adjacent States are pouring
streams into the reservoir. Go ahead! Missouri and Kentucky.

179 The Iowa Republican, November 23, 1853, quoting the St. Louis
Democrat. This is briefly contradicted in the New York Tribune, Novem
ber 12, 1853.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 131
.... You are adjured by a cabal of screaming Hypocrites to
keep aloof from Nebraska. They cry out when you approach
it as if it was the holy of holies. They put forward as a pretext
the right of the red man, but the real cause is because you can
[not] be introduced by a negro. The white man forsooth must
only enter into Nebraska by the aid and companionship of a black
man, as if that country was destined to be a mere slavery nursery
on an Indian preserve.
"You must walk on tiptoe when you come in view of the
boundaries of that Territory and not with the firm and advancing
stride of your ancestor. But it is evident that you have not the
fear of that croaking cabal before your eyes, who are trying to
frighten you away by flapping the shreds of an obsolete law in
your westward looking eyes. Be not afraid. The intrigues of
that official who haunted the wigwams of the Indians to incite
them to murder you will be exposed when Congress meets." ^^°
After making considerable allowance for parti
san exaggeration, one may safely conclude that Ben
ton's attempts to rouse popular interest in the imme
diate settlement of Nebraska were not wholly fu-
tile.^«i Benton's disconcerting aggressiveness, further
more, in declaring Nebraska legally open to settle
ment, as well as his misrepresentations of Atchison's
attitude toward the Pacific railroad — although in
jurious to himself in the end — had the immediate
effect of seriously weakening Atchison's position by
compelling him to act upon the defensive, a position
which no politician with a formidable antagonist
relishes, and the seriousness of his position was aggra
vated by the general interest felt in the subject.
180 An allusion to Col. Manypenny's visit to Nebraska.
181 See the New York Tribune, July 12, and November 26, 1853, quot
ing the St. Louis Democrat.

132 THE REPEAL OF
Said one of the prominent anti-Benton news
papers : ^^^
"In this question (shall Nebraska come into the Union?)
all are interested; it touches the interest of Missouri, and indeed
in it is involved the prosperity of the Union.
"The people will not become apprised of these facts until the
question is agitated in the public journals; there is an indifference
on the public mind, an apathy, which is unaccountable. This
supineness should be shaken off and this subject viewed in all its
bearings in order that a healthy state of opinion may be aroused
before has come the tug of war.
"Efforts have been made and ere long they will be repeated
to establish a regular territorial government in Nebraska, which
will be succeeded in unless efforts are made to prevent it, after
which application will be made for admission as a State and as a
free State. "Who will doubt but that Nebraska will be a free State, if
she be allowed to come in at all? By the Missouri Compromise
all or the greater part of Nebraska is free territory. But if the
Compromise is disregarded — still no other conclusion can be
formed, if we suffer experience to teach us."
From such comments as this, and from the in
creasingly bitter personal attacks upon Benton,^^' it
182 The Jefferson Examiner, quoted in the Jefferson Inquirer, October
22, 1853. No more is quoted than is given above.
183 In the latest of Atchison's speeches delivered in the campaign of
1853, of which I have found any report, namely, the one delivered at
Fayette early in November, occurs the following diatribe:
"As an instance of his egotism and effrontery in his Monroe county
letter. Colonel Benton writes that Atchison does not contradict him. But
all this slang of Benton's would have been unnoticed by him [Atchison]
had it not been for the injustice Benton was doing the people, saying
nothing of his fulsome falsehoods, to say nothing of his lies. Benton's
arguments upon this subject [the right of immediate settlement in Ne
braska] would disgrace any pettifogger in the State; false conclusions
drawn from stupid assumptions were characteristic of the man. In his
monomania the ignis faiuus self obscures every shadow of self-respect or
regard for the truth. Nothing is too high or holy for his animadversion
and misrepresentation. In him the honors of office and the gray hairs
of age are alike prostituted to the unholy purpose of giving credit to his

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 133
is obvious that Senator Atchison was not experiencing
any feeling of assurance of ultimate victory over
Benton. Indeed the political situation throughout the
summer and fall of 1853 was full of difficulty for
Mr. Atchison.
In order to recover the ground lost as a result
of Benton's unexpected manoeuvres, Atchison could
not fail to perceive that he too must assume at the
earliest possible moment an aggressive Nebraska pol
icy. At the same time he was confronted by
his inconsistency in having first opposed and finally
supported, in the face of his radical pro-slavery ut
terances, a Nebraska territorial bill retaining the
Missouri Compromise restriction. Stung by the
newspaper attacks of which an example has been
quoted from the Jefferson Inquirer, Atchison real
ized that to regain the confidence of his constituents,
he must explain to them even more fully and satis
factorily than he had explained to the Senate the
reasons for his recent inconsistency. For the future
the only course open to him was to assume a position
in regard to Nebraska which should not only har
monize both with his former pro-slavery utterances
and with the interests of his slaveholding constituents
and the desire of the western section of the State for
the early organization of the new Territory, but
filthy vituperations. Even Congress by him is dragged from the high
position of reflecting the sentiments of an intelligent and virtuous people
to the lewd embrace of a common courtesan. 'From the abundance of the
heart the mouth speaketh' is an assertion of Holy Writ that points to the
steeps from which emanates all this loathsome effluvia, Benton's heart, the
blackness of whose conceptions would induce a Nero to pluck it from his
polluted bosom; and yet he would sit as an umpire upon the action of
Congress which he denounces for its ignorance and stupidity. . . . ."
Reported in the Jefferson Inquirer, November 14, 1853.

134 THE REPEAL OF
which should also be essentially different from Ben
ton's Nebraska policy. As early as his speeches at
Weston and Platte City in June,^** Senator Atchison
seems to have discovered the best, in fact the only,
card to play with the prospect of winning; and as
the campaign progressed he played that card with in
creasing assurance and aggressiveness — one may al
most say desperation. He took great pains in these
speeches and in his speeches at Parkville ^^^ in Au
gust, and at Fayette in November, 1853,^^^ to define
his position with reference to Nebraska. One reason
offered in explanation of his early opposition to the
Nebraska bill was based upon the same economic
consideration which he had stated to the Senate. A
second reason was based upon Indian considerations:
"All the [Nebraska] territory of much value was in the
possession and occupation of various tribes of Indians. This pos
session and occupation was guaranteed by treaties, and with some
of those tribes we had stipulations not to form a territorial or
state government  It therefore becomes necessary for us
before a government can be organized to maintain inviolate our
plighted faith by extinguishing the Indian titles to the land and
obtain their consent to the formation of a territorial or state
government." ^87
The third and most important reason of all
related to the subject of slavery in the new Territory,
and upon this Senator Atchison made a special effort
to clarify and emphasize his position, past, present
and future. At Weston and Platte City he said:
184 June 6 and ii, respectively. Reported in the Missouri Republican,
June 22, 1853.
185 August 6. Reported in Missouri Republican, August 31, 1853.
186 Reported in Jefferson Inquirer, November 14, 1853.
187 Quoted from the speeches at Weston and Platte City.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 1 35
Colonel Benton and others "had assumed that slavery was
excluded from that Territory by the law commonly called the
Missouri Compromise. If so, / was then and am now opposed
to interfering with that Territory unless that restriction can be re
moved. 188 I was in favor of, and did vote for, the appropriation
of money to enable the President to make treaties with the In
dians to extinguish their title to lands upon which they reside, and
to obtain their consent to the organization of a territorial govern
ment, and this was all that Congress should in my opinion have
done in the premises at the last session. Now .... I will tell
you what I will do. I will vote for the ratification of treaties to
extinguish the Indian titles to lands in that Territory and I will
support a bill to organize a government for the Territory upon the
condition that such bill contains no restriction upon the subject
of slavery, and not otherwise. I will vote for a bill that leaves
the slaveholder and the non-slaveholder upon terms of equality.
/ am willing that the people who may settle there and who have
the deepest interest in this question should decide it for themselves.
As a very large and respectable portion of my constituents are
directly or indirectly interested in slave property, I am unwilling
that they with this species of property should be excluded. I will
give no advantage to one citizen over another. Mr. Abelard
Guthrie, in an address or circular to his constituents says that
'Atchison politely told him that he would see the Territory of
Nebraska sunk in hell before he would vote for it as freesoil terri
tory.' .... I do not remember of making use of expressions so
emphatic but I will not deny it. I may have said so. But that
there may be no mistake and that I may not be misunderstood
hereafter, / now say emphatically that I will not vote for any bill
that makes Nebraska a freesoil Territory. I have not, and I do
not intend upon any occasion to yield one inch to the spirit of
freesoilism and abolitionism, whether they exhibit themselves here
at home or in Washington. Our old Senator of thirty years stand
ing, 'he who is known in Europe and America' and who will be
known if his own account of things proves true to 'posterity' is

188 The italics in this paragraph are mine.

136 THE REPEAL OF
the author of all the doubts and misgivings as to my position
upon this question.
"Permit me now to ask what has this distinguished personage
who has been Senator from Missouri for so long a time done upon
this subject? What has he done toward organizing and settling
the Nebraska Territory? What has he ever attempted to do?
Did he ever introduce a bill to organize a government or to ex
tinguish the Indian titles in that Territory? If he did, when and
where ? He has only been absent from the Senate since the fourth
of March, 1851, not quite twenty-seven months. What has filled
him so brimful with fiery zeal and hot haste ? What has induced
him to make assertions which he knew not to be true as to the
opinions and actions of myself and others? .... Duty to him
self and the State he in part represents should have called forth
.... under other circumstances than those which now surround
him an exhibition of this latter-day zeal upon this and kindred
subjects. This was necessary to prevent his sincerity being now
doubted and his motives impugned." '89
On the sixth of August, at Parkville, Mr. Atchi
son explained his position with much more amplifi
cation :
"Colonel Benton, Mr. Webster, Mr. Clay and others told
us that the Act of 1820, commonly called the Missouri Compro
mise, excluded slavery from this Territory and Congress had the
power to pass such a law, and that it was constitutional, and so
forth. Benton in one of his speeches declared that there was
no slave territory belonging to the United States; that Mexican
law excluded slavery from the territory acquired by the treaty
with that Republic at the close of the war; that the Missouri
Compromise excluded slavery from all the Louisiana country north
of 36° 30' not included in the limits of the State of Missouri
(this very Territory of Nebraska). Was it then strange that I
should hesitate about sustaining Mr. Hall's bill? Missouri is and
always has been a slave State. A large portion of my constituents
are slaveholders. Could it be expected that I would be very

189 See also editorial in the Missouri Republican, January 31, 1854.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 1 37
anxious about organizing a Territory from which a large portion
of my constituents would be excluded? The State of Missouri
is now bounded on two sides by free States; organize this Terri
tory as free territory then we are bounded on three sides by
free States or Territories.
"What would be the effect upon slave property in Missouri
and in this neighborhood it requires no prophet to tell. It is a
problem not difficult to solve. The free States have a pious and
philanthropic class of men who observe the 'higher law' and whose
duty it is to attend to other people's business and think that they
are rendering God good service in stealing their neighbors' negroes.
But, fellow citizens, that I may be clearly understood in relation
to this point, I now declare to you that I will not vote for a bill
to organize a government for the Territory of Nebraska unless
that bill leaves the Territory open for settlement to all the people
of the United States without restriction or limitation; open to the
slaveholder as well as to the non-slaveholder. 1^" I will vote for
no bill that directly or indirectly makes a discrimination between
the citizens of the different States of this Union, North or South,
slave or non-slaveholding ; no bill that strikes at the equality of
the States of this Confederacy 
"At the last session of Congress an appropriation was made
to enable the President to negotiate treaties with the Indians for
the purpose of obtaining their consent to the organization of a
government and to purchase their lands for settlement by the white
men. This was the object of the appropriation and I voted for
it; and I doubt not but that the object of the appropriation will be
carried out by the President before the meeting of the next Con
gress. If so, then I will vote for and use all the influence I have
in favor of a hill to organize a government and to promote its
settlement upon the principles I have indicated  ''"
"When Nebraska shall be settled and its people desire to enter
this Union as a State, it is the right of the people to form their
institutions to suit themselves. They may adopt slavery as one
of their institutions or they may exclude it, as they shall deem
expedient. If it is the will of a majority of the people of the

190 The italics are mine.

138 THE REPEAL OF
Territory at that time to exclude slavery, be it so. It is their
business, not ours. Let them present us with a republican form
of government, this is all that shall be asked. I would vote its
admission into the Union. The Territories of the United States,
preparatory to their admission into the Union as States, have the
right to form their own institutions, as much so as States of the
Union have a right to change their institutions.
"No person will deny the right of South Carolina to abolish
slavery. None will deny the right of Massachusetts to establish
slavery. The Territories have the same right when they form
their Constitutions and ask admission into this Union as States, ^'i
"Now am I understood? If there is anything doubtful in
my position, I will thank any gentleman to catechize me that I
may be clearly and distinctly understood, for I desire upon this
question to be understood. I know that my opinion upon this
subject has been by some misunderstood and others misrepresented.
No person questions me? Then I am understood  "
The reader has doubtless observed that in none
of the foregoing declarations has Senator Atchison
directly and frankly championed the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise. No pledge has been given
that he will endeavor at the coming session of Con
gress to accomplish the Repeal. All his declarations
bearing upon this point are made with a certain res
ervation ; all are in the negative form, and from them
no such pledge can with perfect certainty be inferred.
It becomes important therefore to know how these
declarations were understood in Missouri at the time.
No direct evidence has been found showing how
Atchison's friends regarded them, but under all the
circumstances it is not unfair to accept the interpre-

191 Compare the phraseology of this and the preceding paragraph with
the language used by Douglas upon the same point in his speeches of
January 30, and May 25, 1854; Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt. i, 275, 941, and
ibid., xxxi, 755 ff.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 139
tation placed upon them by the leading Benton news
papers. The following editorial, taken from the St.
Joseph Gazette,^^^ a Benton organ, is probably the
first public statement in which the significance of the
issues between Benton and Atchison over Nebraska
is directly associated with the compromise measures
of 1850 and with the national party platforms of
1852. The charges here brought against Atchison,
it will be seen, do not differ essentially from those
generally brought against Douglas for his supposed
origination of the Repeal.
" . . . . Atchison says he will never vote for a bill to or
ganize the Territory without the restrictive clause upon the subject
of slavery is removed, or in other words without virtually re
pealing the Missouri Compromise. The only safety to the slave
States consists in our opinion in a rigid adherence to this measure.
How could Gen. Atchison carry out the policy he now advocates
without disturbing the Compromise measures and opening afresh
the slavery excitement which has agitated this Union from its
circumference to its center. Have not Democrats been denounced
as agitators of the slavery question for endeavoring to repeal the
Jackson resolutions? How then can Gen. Atchison escape the
same charge and that too, by his own friends when he is advocating
the repeal of that restrictive clause referred to! Are we not all
as Democrats pledged to abide by the Compromise measures ? But
Gen. Atchison now says he will not vote for a bill organizing
Nebraska without the restrictive clause on slavery is removed.
Then he is unwilling to abide by the settlement of that question
which is now recognized as the law of the land. Who, then
we ask, are the slavery agitators? Let Gen. Atchison and those
who advocate his doctrines answer. For our part we are content
to let that question rest forever.''
192 Quoted in the Jefferson Inquirer, October 12, 1853.

140 THE REPEAL OF
A few days later the following appeared in the
Jefferson Inquirer: "^
"The Union is to be again threatened with dissolution, if a
territorial government is organized in that Territory, the Missouri
Compromise is to be disregarded, and Nebraska is to be kept out
of the Union! unless Congress will first establish slavery in the
Territory and then deny to the people the right to reject it 
Senator Atchison .... declares his opposition to the organiza
tion of the territorial government of Nebraska unless Congress
'will repeal the slavery restriction,' or in other words set aside
the Missouri Compromise! What becomes of the Baltimore
platform and the Compromise acts when California was admitted
to the Union, and why does Senator Atchison now seek to renew
the slavery agitation? .... No matter for consistency or for
right. The organization and admission of Nebraska must be
opposed because Colonel Benton and his friends favor it."
The Benton newspapers, it must be admitted,
endeavored to put the worst possible interpretation
upon the words and declarations of Senator Atchison.
In view of all the evidence, however, it is difficult
to believe that they did any violence to his real in
tentions or to the real significance of his utterances.
There can be no mistaking the most important issue
between these two warring factions in Missouri in
the summer and autumn of 1853 : that issue is nothing
less than the retention or the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise in connection with the organization of
a territorial government in Nebraska at the next ses
sion of Congress.
At the close of the 3 2d Congress and the re
opening of the senatorial contest in the spring of 1853
we saw ^^'' good reason to predict that if the repeal

193 October 22, 1853.
19"* See page 106.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 141
of the Missouri Compromise should ever appear
feasible, if upon its consummation his political career
depended. Senator Atchison would be found actively
supporting it. We have now seen that Benton's be
wildering aggressiveness in forcing to the front the
question of the Pacific railroad and a territorial gov
ernment for Nebraska, in misrepresenting Atchison's
position regarding both of these measures, in stren
uously endeavoring to undermine Atchison's political
support by proclaiming the right of immediate settle
ment in Nebraska — had placed Senator Atchison in
a most embarrassing position, a position in which his
very political life seemed at stake. In this crisis and
in order to extricate himself Senator Atchison as
sumed the dangerous role of champion of the repeal
of the Missouri Compromise and pledged his support
to the Nebraska territorial bill only on the condition
that the Compromise restriction should be repealed.
Thus the issues between these aspirants for the Sen
atorial seat arise out of subjects peculiarly within the
scope of Congressional legislation. It seems safe to
predict, therefore, that the contest will appear in
Washington in some form or other, since there alone
can the issues be finally determined. Before, how
ever, taking up the Washington aspects of the Mis
souri Senatorial fight some attention must be given
to other agencies at work in 1853 seeking to compel
action by the next Congress respecting the estab
lishment of a territorial government for Nebraska.

CHAPTER V
The Provisional Government of Nebraska-Rev. Thomas Johnson
-The Commissioner of Indian Affairs Visits Nebraska-Charges
against Him.
Mention has been made in the preceding chapter
of the interest with which the Wyandott Indians
living near the confluence of the Kansas and Missouri
rivers had watched the great emigration through the
Nebraska country and the subsequent discussions of
the Pacific railway; also of the efforts of Mr. Guthrie
as their representative, to force upon the attention of
the second session of the 32d Congress the subject of
a territorial government. If, as Colonel Benton kept
publicly reiterating, the creation of a territorial gov
ernment in Nebraska was a step necessary, prelim
inary and indispensable to the construction of the
railway along the "central" route, it was clearly to
their interest to persevere in active steps looking to
ward the early establishment of such government.
The "central" route would pass directly through
their lands, and hence would greatly enhance all
values there. In this direction, therefore, lay their
chief interest in the creation of the territorial gov
ernment."^ A consideration of more immediate con-

195 With the Wyandotts, the chief grounds of interest in the territorial
question were, at the beginning, quite unconnected with the subject of
slavery. It was not long, however, before that subject entered to compli
cate matters.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 143
cern related to the recent passage by Congress of an
Act authorizing the President to enter into negotia
tions with the Indians in Nebraska for the sale of
their lands, and making an appropriation for that
purpose."* From the adjournment of Congress in
March, 1853, ^^^^^ July of that year, we have no very
clear evidence of what took place among them.
Up to this time, apparently, the Wyandotts had
not only taken the initiative among the inhabitants
of Nebraska, but they seem to have acted through
out without the cooperation or assistance of the
other emigrant tribes living near them. But as
the magnitude of the undertaking became more evi
dent, they realized the need and importance of enlist
ing the active interest of the other emigrant tribes
who might also profit by the construction of the
Pacific railroad. Steps were accordingly taken by
the Wyandott leaders in the spring and early summer
of 1853 to rekindle the council fire of the old north
eastern league among the emigrant tribes in Ne
braska. Out of this movement arose the organization
of the "Provisional Government of Nebraska,"
which was immediately followed by the first struggle
on Kansas soil between the pro-slavery and anti-
slavery parties.
In May, 1853, an informal meeting of the chief
men among the Wyandotts and the other emigrant
tribes in Nebraska, located upon the borders of Mis
souri and Iowa, was held for the purpose of seriously
considering their interests."'' It was decided to issue
196 See pages 90, 91.
197 Kan. Hist. Soc. Trans., vi, 104. Connelley's Prov. Gov., 30.

144 THE REPEAL OF
a call for a convention of delegates from the various
emigrant tribes to meet early in August at the Coun
cil House of the Wyandott Nation, with the object
of effecting the organization of a provisional govern
ment for Nebraska. For some reason not definitely
known, the date of the meeting was changed to the
twenty-sixth of July.
The call for this convention was issued after
Colonel Benton had begun to advocate publicly the
immediate settlement of Nebraska by white men. It
appears, furthermore, that Benton was advised of the
contemplated convention, and approved it. There
is also slight ground for believing that he had even
urged it himself."*
The Convention met on July 26. "' A long
198 Such a course on his part would have been quite in keeping with
his public utterances in the summer of 1853. Moreover, it is very evident
that the interest and aims of the Wyandotts and of Colonel Benton, if they
did not exactly coincide, at all events tended strongly to converge. — Kan.
Hist. Soc. Trans., vi, 105; Connelley's Prov. Gov., 31.
"The politicians resident in Nebraska," wrote the editor of the Bloom
ington (Mo.) Republican after a visit to the Wyandotts in the fall of 1853,
"cannot keep out of Missouri nor the Missouri politicians out of Nebraska.
The Indians seem to understand Col. Benton, if Missouri does not. They
are divided, one party supports freesoilism, while the other is opposed to it;
and both agree that the Colonel is the friend and supporter of freesoil and
is upon good terms with the Abolitionists. ..." — Quoted in the Iowa
State Gazette, November 9, 1853.
199 "We are informed that one of the gentlemen present at this meet
ing reports the whole number who took part in it at fifteen. These were
persons residing in the Territory under permits as traders, or as connected
with the mission  We do not therefore look upon this meeting as a
fact having any important bearing on the question of organization. Or
ganization is nevertheless impatiently desired by a portion of the people
of Missouri and should not be delayed beyond another Congress  "
National Intelligencer, August 16, 1853, quoting St. Louis Intelligencer.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 145
series of resolutions was adopted.^"" One was "ex
pressive of the Convention's preference of the Great
Central Rail Road Route;" another, of its regret at
the failure of the last Congress to establish a terri
torial government in Nebraska. This subject was
earnestly recommended to the consideration of the
next Congress, and the earliest possible passage of
such an act was urged.
Though these resolutions contain no mention of
slavery, they were not passed without a discussion
which revealed sharp differences of opinion regard
ing that subject and brought out the fact that there
were delegates present who sympathized with the
pro-slavery, or Atchisonian, party in Missouri. Thus
in the resolutions as originally proposed, "a pro
found sense of obligation to Hon. Thomas H. Ben
ton and to Willard P. Hall of Missouri" led to the
inclusion of a resolution expressive of grateful ac
knowledgment "for their generous and patriotic
exertions in support of the rights and interests of our
Territory." '°'
"One speaker 'was opposed to inserting Benton's name, for
it would damn any measure in Congress.' This was Gen. Whit
field 202 vvho thought the meeting premature, that the Indian title
should be first extinguished. He was the agent of the Pottawat-
omies. Some of the speakers advocated the early organization

200 The resolutions are printed in full in Kan. Hist. Soc. Trans., vi,
107-108, and in Connelley's Prov. Gov., 43 ff.
201 This is the account given in the Parkville Luminary, quoted in the
Missouri Republican, August 8, 1853; see also the New York Tribune,
November 2, 1853, quoting the Cleveland Forest City.
202 J. w. Whitfield, a prominent figure in the later Kansas struggles;
elected Delegate to Congress from Kansas, by the pro-slavery party, July
23, 1854.

146 THE REPEAL OF
of the Territory and its settlement as the means to securing the
Pacific railroad.
"Gren. Whitfield again spoke with much force; that he was
for compromise according to the late act; that the Missouri Com
promise ought to be repealed; that men from all parts of the
Union ought to have the privilege of bringing their property with
them, from a negro to a spring jenny; he said they might cry no
agitation when slavery was excluded by the Missouri Compromise;
for his part he should agitate and agitate until Southern men were
permitted to take their slaves to the Territory ; he did not care
personally whether it was finally made a slave State or not.
"Mr. Abelard Guthrie spoke in a quiet and sensible manner.
He was opposed to agitation; wanted a territorial government
organized like Utah without any allusion to the subject of slavery;
and then have the polls open and let the citizens themselves decide
the question pro or con ; 203 g^d like every other good citizen he
was willing to abide the decision of the majority.
"Rev. Thomas Johnson moved to strike out the fifth resolu
tion [the one in which reference was made to Benton and Hall's
efforts in behalf of the territory]. He was opposed to personal
matters in this Convention; in praising two men they had perhaps
left out others equally meritorious; he was opposed to furnishing
a hobby for any man to ride on; . . . . thought these names
would prejudice their interests; that it was bad policy to say
the least. "Gen. Whitfield was also opposed to the resolution; he did
not want the railroad or Nebraska bill to 'tote any man through,
or any man to tote them through.'
"Mr. Guthrie said he knew that when the bill in the last
Congress had few friends that Mr. Hall and Col. Benton used
untiring exertions to carry it through; that Nebraska owed them
a debt of gratitude; he wanted the Convention to take a stand
above personal prejudices ; where shall we look for friends if we
prove ungrateful and refuse to acknowledge meritorious services.
"The friends of the resolution appeared willing in order to
203 xhe italics are mine.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 147
appease the opposition to let them lay it on the table without voting
to sustain it." ^o-t
Other resolutions authorized the calling of an
election of a Delegate to Congress on the second
Tuesday of October, the nomination of a Delegate
by the Convention then in session, and the immediate
election by the Convention of "a provisional gov
ernor, a provisional secretary of state and a council
of three persons." William Walker^"' was there
upon elected Provisional Governor, G. I. Clark, Sec
retary of the Territory, and O. C. Miller, Isaac
Mundy and M. R. Walker, Councilmen; and the
Convention nominated Mr. Abelard Guthrie as can
didate for Delegate to Congress. Rev. Thomas
Johnson was also nominated, but at the time he de
clined to run as an opposition candidate.
On the first day of August, 1853, Governor Walk
er issued his proclamation for the election of a Ter
ritorial Delegate, to be held on the second Tuesday
in October, and two hundred copies of the proclama
tion were printed for circulation throughout the Ter
ritory.^"^ A few days afterwards, another Conven-
204 The Missouri Republican, in commenting upon the account given
above, said: "We understand indeed that this Convention was composed
of about a dozen individuals of the territory, and that it was managed by
one or two persons. It will only make work for the President."
205 Kan. Hist. Soc. Trans., vi, 107 ff, and Connelley's Prov. Gov.,
33 ff. Walker was at this time head chief of the Wyandotts, and the most
influential man in the tribe. After the War of 1812 he was for some years
the private secretary of General Cass. He was an ardent Democrat, of
pro-slavery sympathies, and was a member of the Lecompton constitutional
convention. Sketches of Walker, and the other men mentioned in the text,
may be found in Connelley's Prov. Gov.
206 This proclamation is in Connelley's Prov. Gov., 47, and the Na
tional Intelligencer, August 25, 1853. It was issued two days before

148 THE REPEAL OF
tion was called at Kickapoo on the twentieth of Sep
tember. Mr. Thomas Johnson was again nominated,
and yielding to the wishes of his friends, became a
candidate for Delegate in opposition to Guthrie.^"^
Atchison wrote to the Secretary of the Interior regarding the right of white
men to settle in Nebraska without further action by Congress.
207 Governor Walker's "Notes on the History of Nebraska," in Connel
ley's Prov. Gov., 58. "Abelard Guthrie was put forward by friends of
Thomas H. Benton; Rev. Thomas Johnson by friends of David R. Atchi
son." — Wilder's Annals of Kansas, 31; see also N. Y. Tribune, November
2, and November 7, 1853. The following uncomplimentary sketch of Rev.
Thomas Johnson is found in Phillips's Conquest of Kansas, 16-17: "Close
to the frontier of Missouri, and within a few miles of Westport, stands
one of the oldest missions in the [Nebraska] Territory, the celebrated
'Shawnee Mission' of the Methodist Church South. Three sections of the
very finest land were granted by the Shawnees to this mission; besides
which, no inconsiderable portion of Government money and percentage on
the Indian annuities have been expended in erecting three or four massive
and extensive, but taste-less and filthy looking, brick buildings, and in
converting those three sections of fertile Indian land into a well-improved
and beautiful farm, which I have heard estimated worth sixty thousand
dollars. In the progress of events, and by a system of management which
I cannot comprehend, much less explain, two sections of this farm, con
taining many of the best improvements, have fallen into the hands of the
present head of the Mission, the Rev. Thomas Johnson.
"Some twenty years ago when this worthy came to Kansas, he was,
as I have been told, 'not worth a blanket.' By 'breaking the bread of life'
to others, he seems haply to have acquired a reasonable portion of the
baser, or 'of the earth earthy' bread himself  The Rev. Tom John
son is a westem man. Vulgar, illiterate and coarse, I have heard his
voice ring through the dingy brick wall of the Shawnee Mission in prayer,
his style being characterized chiefly by extreme western provincialisms and
very bad grammar. A violent pro-slavery partisan, he has been a
useful tool in his way. His name may be found figuring in some of the
most violent of the pro-slavery partisan meetings  " A more com
plimentary sketch is given by Mr. Coimelley in his Provisional Govern
ment, 40 n: "Rev. Thomas Johnson was born in Virginia, July 11, 1802.
He was assassinated in his own home in Kansas, near Westport, Mo.,
January 2, 1865. He was sent by the M. E. Church to preach to the
Shawnees in the 'Indian Territory' in 1829. After laboring here for some
time, he was compelled to abandon his work on account of poor health,
and he then moved to Fayette, Mo. In 1847 he was prevailed upon to

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 149
The Kickapoo Convention also adopted a series
of resolutions, the most important of which must
have been inspired by some one in close touch with
the leaders of the Atchisonian party in Missouri : ^"^
"Resolution i. That the growing interest of the Territory
seems to demand the extinguishment of the present Indian titles
and that we are highly gratified to see that the General Govern
ment is taking active steps to consummate this most desired object.
"2. That although we earnestly desire and ask for a speedy
organization, nevertheless we deem it imprudent to establish a
territorial government until after the titles of the present owners
of the soil are extinguished, believing as we do, that the Indians
have certain rights guaranteed to them by the Government, which
must be respected.
"3. That we fully concur in the views expressed by Colonel
Manypenny, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in regard to the
present settlement by the whites.
"4. That we know no North, no South, no East, no West,
and desire the organization of a territorial government without
any restriction but having due regard to the interest of every
portion of our glorious Union.
"5. That we deem it expedient that we should be represented
in Washington this winter and that we do in Convention assembled

resume his work in the Shawnee Mission Schools. From this time until his
death he was prominent in the councils of the Price-Atchison Democracy
of Missouri in their efforts to introduce slavery into Nebraska and Kansas.
He was elected President of the first Territorial Council of Kansas Ter
ritory, in 1855. This was the 'Upper House' of the Legislature that enacted
the 'Bogus Laws.' .... Mr. Johnson was a good man. The cause which
he believed a holy one was in fact a bad one and was hastened to destruc
tion by the madness of its advocates. His belief in its righteousness is not
surprising, for it had been instilled into his mind from infancy. He did
what he believed to be right. He was a true and humble Christian and an
eloquent and earnest minister of the Gospel." Mr. Connelly refers to
"an excellent biography of Mr. Johnson" in Andreas's History of Kansas,
300. See also "The Methodist Missions among the Indian Tribes in Kan
sas," by Rev. J. J. Lutz, in Kan. Hist. Soc. Trans., ix, 160 ff. and a descrip
tion of the Shawnee Mission in Kan. Hist. Soc. Trans., viii, 256, 333.
208 The resolutions are in the Missouri Republican, September 29, 1853.

150 THE REPEAL OF
nominate a suitable person, free from all sectional prejudices and
partialities, having the true interest of the Territory at heart."
The sixth resolution accordingly provided for
the election of a territorial delegate to be held on the
same day fixed by the Wyandott Convention at its
session of July 26, the polls to be located at sixteen
different places in the Territory.
"8. That we are in favor of the immediate construction
of the Pacific railroad and that we believe the organization of Ne
braska Territory will advance this great national work  "
Thus the two rival candidates for the office of
Territorial Delegate were standing upon platforms
in which the only common features were the desire
for the early extinguishment of Indian titles in Ne
braska, and the organization of a territorial govern
ment as a means of facilitating the construction of
the Pacific railroad. Otherwise, Guthrie apparent
ly represented the Bentonian, Johnson, the Atchiso
nian, policies. ^°'
The election of Territorial Delegate took place,
in accordance with the proclamation of Governor
Walker, on the eleventh day of October, 1853. The
votes were cast in several different localities or pre-
209 Upon the subject of slavery, little was said in these resolutions,
but it seemed to be understood that the candidate of the Kickapoo Con
vention represented an element desiring the repeal of the Missouri Com
promise restriction, and that the candidate of the Wyandott Convention,
although opposed to a reagitation of the slavery question, was willing to
go so far as to leave the decision respecting slavery to the people who might
settle the new Territory, which was essentially the position of Mr. Doug
las. In this way the subject of slavery was thus early injected into the
nascent politics of the embryonic Territory. Here really began the "strug
gle for Kansas,'' even before the creation of the Territory. See the New
York Tribune, November 2, 1853, quoting the Cleveland Forest City and
the Missouri Democrat; and November 7, 1853, quoting the Washington
Star.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 151
cincts. Regarding the result in the Wyandott pre
cinct. Governor Walker's journal says:
"Tuesday, October 11, 1853. Attended the election of del
egate to Congress, for Wyandott precinct. Fifty one votes were
polled. "A. Guthrie • • . • 33
"Tom Johnson . . . 18
"The priesthood of the M. E. Church made unusual exer
tions to obtain a majority for their holy brother. Amidst the
exertions of their obsequious tools it was apparent that it was an
uphill piece of business in Wyandott." ^^^
On October 31 we find Governor Walker con
ceding and explaining the election of Rev. Mr. John
son, before the returns were canvassed, in the follow
ing entry:
"I suppose we may safely set down Thomas Johnson's election
for delegate as certain. It is not at all surprising, when we look
at the fearful odds between the opposing candidates. Mr. Guth
rie had only his personal friends to support him with their votes
and influence, while the former had the whole power of the Fed
eral Government, the presence .ind active support of the Com
missioner of Indian Affairs, the military, the Indian Agents, Mis
sionaries, Indian Traders, &c. A combined power that is ir
resistible." 211
The returns were canvassed on the seventh of
November and "it was found that Thomas Johnson
of Shawnee had received a majority of all the votes
cast," and accordingly he "was declared duly elect
ed." -'" On the following day the proper certificate
of election was issued to Mr. Johnson, by Governor
Walker.

-10 Connelley's Prov. Gov., 38. Kan. Hist. Soc. Trans., vi, 109.
-11 Connelley's Prov. Gov., 39. Kan. Hist. Soc. Trans., vi, 109. N. Y.
Tribune, Nov. 2, 1853, quoting the Cleveland Forest City; and Nov.
14, 1853. 212 Connelley's Prov. Gov., 39, 58. Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt. i, 75.

152 THE REPEAL OF
Commenting afterwards upon the proceeding in
reference to the establishment of a provisional gov
ernment in Nebraska and the election of a Territorial
Delegate, Governor Walker said :
"Many politicians and editors of the public journals whose
standard of political morals was of the straitest kind viewed these
proceedings with decided aversion and regarded them as revolu
tionary, etc., mobocratic, law-defying, unprecedented, illegal; for
getting the several provisional governments of California, Oregon,
New Mexico, etc.
"It is here worthy of remark that in each of the emigrant
tribes of Indians elections were held and they voluntarily and
freely participated in them ; showing that they anticipated and were
prepared for the change in their political condition which they
saw would soon be wrought out. As was the case with Mr.
Guthrie who was elected delegate the year previous. Congress being
averse to a departure from 'the line of safe precedent,' by admit
ting delegates from unorganized territories, refused to admit Mr.
Johnson to a seat in that body. The provisional government of
Nebraska continued in existence till after the organization by
Congress of the two Territories and the arrival of A. H. Reeder,
the first Governor of Kansas." 2i3
The election of Mr. Johnson and the defeat of
Mr. Guthrie, their own candidate, was far from
pleasing to the Wyandotts :
They "felt outraged by the action of the Commissioner of
Indian Affairs but as their interests were so largely in his hands
they could do nothing else than submit without protest, and this
they all did, except Mr. Guthrie. He filed a contest for the seat
of Delegate and vigorously attacked the Commissioner of Indian
Afiairs in the public prints. 21* He spent a portion of the winter
in Washington and labored for the territorial government of
Nebraska until he was convinced that the slave power would
213 "Notes on the History of Nebraska," in Connelley's Prov. Gov., 60.
214 Connelley's Prov. Gov., 40. Kan. Hist. Soc. Trans., vi, no.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 1 53
organize two Territories and endeavor to make one slave, and
permit the other to come into the Union, free." ^'^
215 In relation to Mr. Guthrie's attack upon Col. Manypenny, Gov
ernor Walker, who could not fairly be called friendly to Manypenny,
has this to say in his Journal, which shows that in his opinion the attack
was not wholly justifiable or kept within the bounds of accuracy.
"Saturday, November 12, 1853.
"Wrote a communication to Col. Manypenny, Commissioner of Indian
Affairs, correcting an error in a communication published in the Missouri
Democrat [Bentonian] by Mr. A. Guthrie, in relation to a speech delivered
by the former to the Wyandott Council.
"Thursday, January 12, 1854.
"Reed, two letters from A. Guthrie. In trouble again. Wants cer
tificates to prove his charges against Commissioner Manypenny. I can't
help him much.
"Saturday, January 28, 1854.
"Reed, an 'Ohio State Journal.' This is the amount of my mail.
Guthrie out on Col. Manypenny again. The former, I fear, will come
off second best. He is imprudent and rash." — Connelley's Prov. Gov., 40.
In a letter to the editor of the New York Tribune, published in that
paper, August 9, 1856, Mr. Guthrie gives this account of the circum
stances connected with the Convention of July 23, and the subsequent
election of a territorial delegate:
"In the autumn of ... . 1853, a convention of the people of the
Territory assembled at Wyandotte, and established a provisional govern
ment — a measure first suggested and the plan proposed by myself. At
this convention I was nominated for reelection. But a portion of the
convention voted and another convention was called at which Mr. Thomas
Johnson was nominated as my competitor. The Chief of the Indian
Bureau at Washington, sided both by money and personal influence, with
my opponent. This I can prove. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise
was now first agitated [in the Territory] and it was thought important
to success that the Territory should be represented by one favorable to that
measure. Hence the interference. And as all the Indian agents were
under the control of the Government, they obtained a very large Indian
vote — persons who were not citizens of the United States, nor willing to
become such, and who voted against me, because these agents told them
'if they did not do so I would be elected and bring them under the white
raan's laws.' But a majority of actual citizens voted for me, yet the certi
ficate of election was given to my competitor by the provisional governor.
I contested the election, but the committee on elections, to whom the sub
ject was referred, never came to any decision thereon. Mr. Johnson
obtained lucrative employment in the Indian Department, and through the
instrumentality of Indian treaties made himself rich, and I was taken

154 THE REPEAL OF
The allusions to the Commissioner of Indian
Affairs found in the last few pages, require some
explanation. Less than three weeks ^** after Gov
ernor Walker had issued his proclamation for the
election of a Territorial Delegate, Colonel George
W. Manypenny, the Commissioner of Indian Af
fairs, was designated by the President to conduct the
negotiations with the Indians west of Missouri and
Iowa, contemplated by the Act of March 3, 1853.^"
Immediately upon the receipt of this communication,
the Commissioner left Washington and "repaired to
the Indian country to discharge the preliminary du
ties embraced" in his instructions. ^'*
The Commissioner entered the Indian country
on the second of September, and remained there un
til the eleventh day of October, the day set for the
election of Territorial Delegate. The interim, so the
Commissioner stated in his report, was occupied "in
visiting, and talking with various tribes, and in ob
taining from all known sources of credit within [his]
sick and have been on the verge of the grave most of the time since."
Reprinted in Connelley's Prov. Gov., 80 ff.
216 August 18, 1853. This was two days after Manypenny, at the
request of the Secretary of the Interior, had replied to Atchison's inquiry,
regarding the right to settle in Nebraska. See pages 125-127.
217 Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, November 9, 1853,
in House Executive Documents, ist Sess., 33d Cong., i, Pt. i, 269 ff.
The substance of this special report is embodied in the general annual
report of the Commissioner, November 26, 1853, ibid., 243 ff.
218 "This [referring to Manypenny's visit to the Indian country] will
be a measure of great importance in its results, opening the way to a legal
occupation of the Pacific route by settlers, and giving countenance to the
squatters who have already rushed into the country without permission.
Its very natural consequence will be to necessitate the passage of a bill
by the next Congress establishing a Territorial Government of Nebraska."
National Intelligencer, August 27, 1853, quoting the North American.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 155
reach such information as might be useful and neces
sary in forming the basis of treaties as contemplated
by the Act of Congress." ^'^
Accompanied by the Rev. Thomas Johnson,
Commissioner Manypenny on the sixth of Sep
tember paid a visit to the Wyandotts, was introduced
by Governor Walker, and made a short address to
their Council then in session. A month later he had
another interview with the Council.^^" Evidently
the Wyandotts were non-committal upon the subject
219 The Commissioner's report of November 26, 1853, (249) states
in more detail what was done: "A preliminary visit to the Indian
country, with a view to explore it, and to obtain such informa
tion as would be useful and necessary in preparing full and de
tailed instructions as to the terms and conditions of the treaties to be
negotiated, was deemed necessary, and was made by that officer [the Com
missioner] in obedience to his instructions. While thus engaged, he visited
the Omahas, [a brief account of the meeting with the Omahas and Ottoes
may be found in the National Intelligencer, October 13, 1853], Ottoes, and
Missouris, lowas. Sacs and Foxes of Missouri, Kickapoos, Delawares,
Shawnees, Wyandotts, Pottawatomies, Sacs and Foxes of the Mississippi,
Chippewas of Swan Creek and Black river, Ottawas of Roche de Boeuf
and Blanchard's fork, Weas and Piankeshaws, Kaskaskias and Peorias and
Miamies. These embrace all the tribes located immediately west of Mis
souri and Iowa, except the bands of the Quapaws, Senecas and Shawnees,
who have small tracts adjacent to the southwest corner of the State of
Missouri, and who, for want of time, the commissioner was unable to
visit. The same cause operated to prevent his seeing the Pawnees, Kan
sas and Osage Indians, with whom, although their lands are not contiguous
to the boundaries of either of these States, it is desirable that treaties also
be made, should a civil government be established and the country opened
for settlement. The Commissioner held councils with every tribe whom
he visited, and disclosed to them the object of his journey to their coun
try." 220 The entry in Governor Walker's journal for this date reads:
"Friday, October 7, 1853. —
"Attended a Council called by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
Speeches were passed between the parties on the subject of the Territorial
organization, [and] selling out to the Government." — Connelley's Prov.
Gov., 38 ; Kan. Hist. Soc. Trans., vi, 109.

156 THE REPEAL OF
of selling their lands, for the Commissioner stated in
his report:
"They advised me that it was their desire, if the Territory of
Nebraska should be organized, to make such changes in their
civil polit}', and their relations to the government, as to conform
to the new order of things in the Territory; but did not give me
their views in relation to their lands."
Before and after Colonel Manypenny's return
to Washington, charges which were given wide cir
culation began to be made by the Benton press in
Missouri, to the effect that while the Commissioner
was among the Indians he had been actively work
ing in the interest of Senator Atchison ^^^ and in sup-

221 The repetition of these charges was not confined to the newspapers
of Missouri: they were taken up by the press in the eastern States. For
example, on the eighteenth of November, 1853, the editor of the New
York Evening Post, after alluding to, and quoting, an explanation of
Colonel Manypenn3r's failure to extinguish Indian titles in Nebraska, said:
"The inference is that Mr. Manypenny has allowed himself to be made the
instrument of Mr. Atchison in this matter. He makes a joumey from
Washington to Nebraska clothed with full power to arrange for the ces
sion of Indian lands; he finds several tribes desirous of making the cession
and he returns from his long journey having done nothing. When inter
rogated as to the cause of this omission he puts on an air of mystery and
tells us that he has good and sufficient reasons. The public will be in no
mood to believe in the validitj- of reasons which he is ashamed to disclose.
The true reason, there is every ground for believing, is a connection with
Mr. Atchison in the intrigue to prevent by any pretense whatever the
settlement and organization of Nebraska." See also editorial in the same
paper, November 15, 1853.
On December 21, 1853, Senator Atchison wrote to the editor of the
Missouri Examiner, branding as false the charges that Colonel Manypenny
was acting under "my dictation and direction in relation to Indian Affairs
in what is now called 'Nebraska.' ... I never spoke to him or
wrote a line to him upon the subject of Indian affairs in Nebraska
nor did he write or speak a word upon that subject to me until since
my arrival in Washington, in November last, except the answer to
my letter to the Secretary of the Interior [mentioned in Chapter IV]. I
further say that I did not see Colonel Manypenny whilst he was in the
western country last summer, nor did I send him any message or have the

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 1 57
port of Johnson as the Delegate to Congress; and
that he had been guilty of a grave breach of official
duty in departing from Nebraska without having
negotiated any treaties with the Indians for the re
linquishment of their lands. For the first of these
charges a basis seems to have been furnished by the
fact that the Commissioner had been escorted
through the Indian country by Gen. J. W. Whit-
field,^^^ one of the most active pro-slavery men in the
Territory, and by the fact that he had visited the
Wyandotts first in the company of Rev. Thomas
Johnson. From our knowledge of Whitfield, it is
not unfair to assume that he was working for the
success of Mr. Johnson who appears to have been in
close touch with the Atchisonian faction in Missouri.
This being true, it is not impossible that the name
of the Commissioner became identified with the polit
ical activity of his guide, although the Commissioner
himself might have wholly refrained from such ac
tivity. To the second charge, greater importance was
least intercourse with him, directly or indirectly. Indeed, I do not believe
that I was within thirty miles of hira at any time during his visit to the
Indian country  " This letter is printed in the Washington Union,
December 23, 1853. The Union makes this comment: "The letter of
Senator Atchison .... is an extinguisher on certain charges therein re
ferred to, made against Colonel Manypenny. Few of our public men
have been more violently or unjustly assailed than the able and popular
Commissioner of Indian Affairs. But these attacks will prove harmless."
222 In his report of November 9, 1853, the Commissioner said:
"I also acknowledge ray obligations to General Whitfield, the agent
for the Pottawatomies and Kansas Indians, who was my travelling com
panion the greater part of the time, for his good offices and the aid and
assistance he rendered me." See also the National Intelligencer, October
13, i8S3-

158 THE REPEAL OF
attached. The Benton press ^^^ alleged that the fail
ure of the Commissioner to negotiate treaties with
the Indians was due solely to his pro-slavery sym
pathies -^"^ and his partisanship for Senator Atchison,
who was opposed to the immediate settlement of
Nebraska, and hence desired all possible delay so
long as the Missouri Compromise inhibition re
mained in force. This charge, however, finds little
support, when the instructions issued to the Commis
sioner by the Secretary of the Interior are carefully
examined. From these it appears that the object of
the Commissioner's visit to Nebraska was not prima
rily to negotiate treaties. Whether or not treaties
should be consummated during that visit was left to
the sound discretion of the Commissioner. Here are
the instructions upon this point: ^^'
"It is believed .... that much good will result from a pre
liminary visit among the Indians, and an exploration of the country
in question ; and for this purpose, and with a view to obtain all
the information necessary to the preparation of full and detailed
223 The supporters of Benton had become embittered against Col.
Manypenny during the controversy between Benton and Atchison over the
legality of immediate settlement in Nebraska. The position taken by the
Commissioner, it will be remembered, was directly in opposition to the
claims advanced by Benton and directly in support of the opinions ex
pressed by Atchison.
224 The following reference to Manypenny occurs in a letter of Salmon
P. Chase to E. S. Hamlin, dated Washington, January 23, 1854: " .
I suppose the Senatorial question decided by this time. Feeling no interest
in it, since no man can be elected who is not pro-slavery, I only desire
to call the attention of the people to a much greater matter [the proposed
repeal of the Missouri Compromise]. I am sorry to hear that you have
electioneered for Manypenny. I like him personally, but I would cut off
my right hand sooner than aid hira or any other man to reach a position
in which he will make Ohio the vassal of the Slave Power  "
"Chase Correspondence," in Am. Hist. Assn., Report, 1902, ii, 257.
22s House Ex. Doc, ist Sess., 33d Cong., i, Pt. i, 269 ff.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 159
instructions as to the terms and conditions of the treaties to be
made, you are requested to proceed at once to the Indian country
and discharge this preliminary duty.
"Should you deem it expedient and proper, however, to enter
into any negotiations with the tribes in question, or either of them,
for the extinguishment of their title to the lands now claimed by
them, or for securing their assent to their settlement by citizens
of the United States, you are fully authorized, in the exercise of
a sound discretion, aided by your experience in the management of
our Indian relations, to do so."
The reasons for the omission to negotiate any
treaties are explained in the Commissioner's report.
The explanation is interesting especially for the indi
cations of some of the effects produced by Colonel
Benton's Cole county letter and the subsequent agita
tion. The Commissioner said:
"As I approached the borders of the Indian country, I found
some of the people discussing with considerable warmth, in the
press and otherwise, the question whether that country was not
then open to occupation and settlement by the citizens of the
United States; and, in some instances, those who held to the right
to settle in the Indian country had gone over to explore with the
intention to locate in it. 226 This discussion and these explora
tions had a very unfavorable influence on the Indian mind. The
Indians were alarmed. Reports reached them that large bodies
of white men were coming into their country to take possession of
and drive them from it. Many of them vvere contemplating
the necessity of defending themselves; and the proposition was
abroad among some of the Indians for a grand council, at which
they should (as one said to me) light up their fires after the old
Indian fashion, and confederate for defence.
"From the time that the original Indian title to the country
was extinguished, under the authority of the act of 28th May, 1830,
and the tribes transplanted from the States and Territories east
of the Mississippi and located in it, until after the adjournment

226 See also the National Intelligencer, November 5, 1853.

l6o THE REPEAL OF
of the last Congress, it had always been considered a country set
apart and dedicated to Indian uses and purposes; and it was
equally well understood, before that time, that no person other
than an Indian could reside there except by permission of the
Government, and for a special purpose.
"The enunciation, therefore, of the opinion that the country
was open to occupation and settlement, at the time it was pro
mulgated, was most unfortunate 
"I found it very difficult to quiet the Indians, and was unable
to fully restore some of these people to the tranquil condition they
were in before the discussion of the subject and exploration of
their country commenced.
"In many councils the effect of this enunciation was evident;
and in some instances I was unable, while in council, to obtain
the calm consideration of the Indians to the subject-matter of my
talk, owing to the excited state of their minds, resulting from the
apprehension that their country was about to be taken from them
without their consent, and without any consideration being paid
them for it; and some even supposed that the object of my visit
was to favor such a design.
"As I progressed in my journey, and the councils which I
held with various tribes increased in number, I was happy to per
ceive a better state of feeling — a willingness to listen, to be
advised, and an assurance of confidence and dependence on their
great father, and a determination to receive favorably the message
I bore from him to them 
"Every tribe with whom I held council, with the exception
of the Weas and Piankeshaws, the Peorias and Kaskaskias (who
own only 256,000 acres), and the Shawnees, refused to dispose
of any portion of their lands, as their first response to my talk.
The small tribes above named proposed at once to dispose of the
most of their land, and intimated that if they could make satis
factory arrangements for a home they would sell the vvhole of it.
"With several of the tribes I could have concluded treaties,
but only on condition that each should reserve for a tribal home
that part of their land adjoining the States. There are grave

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE i6l
objections to such a policy, involving alike the interests and peace
of the citizens of the States, of those who may become residents
of the Territory, and of the Indians themselves. From the
disposition manifested by some Indians of influence to acquiesce
in the views submitted to them on this point, I w:ts of the opinion
that, with these tribes, treaties on terms more favorable to the
Government, and with provisions more consistent with their per
manent welfare and happiness, could be made after thoy had time
for discussion and reflection, which some of them requested should
be granted; and I therefore deemed it best to leave the subject
with them, and confine myself to that branch of my instructions
wliicli made it my duty to explore the country, and obtain such
information as would be useful, and from which the data could
be obtained to form, as near as practicable, a uniform system of
treaties. Of the propriety of this course I have now no doubt.
"A civil government .should be org;ini/,ed over tlic Territory.
The Intercourse act is almost a dead letter. The United States
court for the district of Missouri and Arkansas is too far re
moved from the Indian country; and for Indian purposes alone,
saying nothing of the protection of our emigration to the l';icific,
a civil government ought to be organized tlicrc. In addition to
this, the position of Nebraska, with reference to our Pacific pos
sessions, renders it a matter of vast importance that it be speedily
opened, and actual settlers invited into it on the most liberal
terms. "It is confidently expected that the necessary treaties can be
made with tlicsc border Indians during the months of April and
May, so that ample time may bo had for their consideration and
ratification by the Senate, and for the cst:iblishnu'nt of :\ terri
torial government before the adjournment of the approaching
session of Coiiiircss." —^

2-7 "The return of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the seat of
government from his tour to the Indian Territory has already been an
nounced. From what we havc learnt of that tour we are inclined to aucur
much Kiiod frora it, and believe that it will furnish the Cuivernmeiit with
an araount of accurate information, obtainable only b\- .ictual observations
on the spot, which will tend t^vf-MW to expedite the desirable and indeed

1 62 THE REPEAL OF

alraost necessary raeasure of a territorial organization of Nebraska  "
National Intelligencer, November s, 1853 ; see also editorial in the New
York Tribune, December 7, 1853.

CHAPTER VI
Popular Interest in Nebraska among Missourians and lowans-
Hadley D. J ohnson— Congressional Action Anticipated-Senator
Douglas in Europe-His Letter to Walker and Lanphier-The
Doctrine of Supersedure.
Having thus witnessed some of the Indian man
ifestations of interest in the early organization of Ne
braska Territory, we may consider similar manifesta
tions by the people of Missouri and Iowa. Inci
dentally these will disprove the statement repeatedly
made during the Kansas-Nebraska debate that there
was no popular demand for the organization of the
new Territories. ^^^

228 Upon this point, James M. Cutts, the son-in-law and the "Boswell"
of Stephen A. Douglas, has the following to say which may be regarded
as coming from Douglas himself:
". . . . In the meantime [1844-53] the passion of the Westem people
for emigration had become so aroused, that they could be no longer re
strained; and Colonel Benton, who was a candidate in Missouri for re
election to the Senate in 1852 and 1853, so far yielded to the popular
clamor, as to advise the emigrants who had assembled, in a force of fifteen
or twenty thousand, on the western border of Missouri, carrying their
tents and wagons, to invade the territory and take possession, in defiance
of the Indian intercourse laws, and of the authority of the Federal Gov-
ermnent, which, if executed, must inevitably have precipitated an Indian
war with all those tribes.
"When this movement on the part of Colonel Benton becarae known at
Washington, the President of the United States despatched the Commissioner
of Indian Affairs [Colonel Manypenny] to the scene of excitement, with or
ders to the commanding officer at Fort Leavenworth to use the United States
army in resisting the invasion, if he could not succeed in restraining the emi
grants by persuasion and remonstrances. The Commissioner of Indian Af-

164 THE REPEAL OF
The interest felt by the people of Missouri
found frequent and emphatic expression in public
meetings in localities where interest was especially
keen. To what extent these meetings were the spon
taneous act of the people and to what extent they
were the result of efforts on the part of politicians,
it is impossible to determine.
After the Parkville meeting of June, 1852, the
first meeting of which a record has been found was
held in Andrew County on the twenty-sixth of No
vember, 1853. The citizens of that county "without
distinction of party," according to the Jefferson In
quirer, ^^' assembled in the court house in Savannah
pursuant to previous notice, and "organized a mass
meeting, by electing Judge Daniel Van Buskirk
president, and G. W. Samuels and W. A. Price sec
retaries. A committee with C. F. Holly, a strong
Bentonite, as chairman, reported a long series of res
olutions of which the following are the most im
portant: "Third resolution. That in failing to extend to Nebraska
the political organization sought at the last session of Congress,
that body or the men therein who were the authors of such
fairs succeeded in procuring the agreement of the emigrants that they would
encamp on the western borders of Missouri until the end of the next session
of Congress, in order to see if Congress would not in the meantime, by law,
open the country to emigration. When Congress assembled at the session
of 1853-54, '1 view of this state of facts, Mr. Douglas renewed his Ne
braska Act, which was modified, pending discussion, by dividing into two
Territories, and became the Kansas-Nebraska Act. From these facts you
can draw your own conclusion, whether there was any necessity for the or
ganization of the Territory and of Congressional action at ihat time." — A
Brief Treatise upon Constitutional and Party Questions, 90-91.
229 December 24, 1853.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 165
failure have a vast responsibility to encounter at the bar of public
opinion and we trust it will be fully met. ^^°
"Fourth resolution. That it is the duty of Congress as
early as possible at its ensuing session to organize Nebraska into a
Territory and thus give to her residents, travellers, and traders
and citizens the protection of law and the rights and privileges
of a free people.
"Fifth resolution. That in effecting that organization a
bill substantially similar in its provisions to those in Hall's bill
introduced at the last session and so ably advocated by our late
faithful Representative, Hon. Willard P. Hall, would meet our
approbation and as we believe that of the whole country.
"Sixth resolution. That in organizing Nebraska Territory
the pestiferous question of slavery should be entirely excluded;
and the people who shall settle it should determine for themselves
whether the future State or States which shall hereafter be formed
from its area shall be free States or slave States, and from sucli
decision when made there should be no appeal. ^^^
"Seventh resolution. That we are utterly opposed to any
agitation of that 'vexed question' now happily set at rest, and 'we
will resist all attempts at renewing in Congress or out of it, the
agitation of the slavery question under whatever shape or color
the attempt may be made.'
"Eighth resolution. That we consider the agitation of the
slavery question in connection with the organization of Nebraska
Territory dangerous to the peace of the country, fatal to the best
interests of Nebraska itself and even threatening the harmony if
not the perpetuity of the whole Union." 222

230 A reproof aimed at Atchison.
231 The italics are mine.
232 Three resolutions also expressly endorsed and approved Col. Ben
ton's doctrine that Nebraska was then open to settlement, and in this con
nection Col. Manypenny comes in for the severest kind of a censure:
"Ninth resolution. That all that portion of Nebraska not included
within the limits of Indian reservations and which comprises the greater
bulk of that Territory is as clearly United States lands and as equally

1 66 THE REPEAL OF
A resolution was also passed providing for the
selection by the meeting of one hundred citizens to
represent Andrew County in "a general convention
subject to the lawful occupation and settlement of American citizens as is
any other vacant Government land not surveyed, reserved or preempted.
"Tenth resolution. That while we are in favor of maintaining in
violate the faith of treaties yet we believe the best interest of the red races
as well as our own, alike require the speedy extinction of all the Indian
titles in Nebraska and the like speedy occupation and settlement of that
whole territory by the patriotic vanguard of the Anglo-Saxon race.
"Eleventh resolution. That seeking immediate settlement of that Ter
ritory in advance of such extinguishment of Indian titles 'that meritorious
class of citizens, the hardy pioneer' may rely upon Col. Benton's map upon
which have been drawn all the Indian reservations, as an accurate and in
valuable guide 
"Fourteenth resolution. That while it is the duty of the Executive to
see that the laws are faithfully executed. President Pierce in having com
missioned an officer to execute the law aforesaid (appropriating $100,000
for the extinguishment of Indian titles) is not liable to censure in the
premises; but Col. Manypenny, the Commissioner, in grossly neglecting
the duties of his appointment, in meddling in the local politics of that
Territory, and failing to treat with the tribes of Indians who were willing
and proposed so to treat and finally returning to Washington without car
rying out in good faith the appropriation made by Congress or assigning
any satisfactory reason for the failure, has evinced a marked contempt
for public opinion, a disregard of law and his utter inefficiency as a
public officer." The source which may have inspired these resolutions is
pretty clearly indicated in the fifteenth resolution.
"Fifteenth resolution. That the unwearied efforts of our late Senator,
Pater Senatus, Col. Thomas H. Benton, to arouse public attention to the
claims of Nebraska Territory, to secure the location of the grand 'highway
of nations' through its center and to promote the general weal of this
State and the Union, deserve and will receive the heartfelt approbation of
a grateful country  "
"The preamble and each resolution," so the report continues, "having
first been read together, were read and voted upon separately and all
unanimously adopted, excepting the fifteenth, which having been dis
cussed" by four speakers in its favor and two against it, "was amended
.... by 'adding the thanks of the people to Hon. W. A. Hall and all
other friends of Nebraska' and finally adopted by a large vote." — Jefferson
Inquirer, Deceraber 24, 1853.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 1 67
of all the friends of Nebraska" to be held at St.
Joseph on the ninth of the ensuing January.^"
Just a week later,-^^ the people of St. Joseph,
"in pursuance of previous notice .... assembled
at the City Hall to express their views in relation to
the immediate organization of Nebraska Territor3^"
The City Hall was crowded, we read, and "the ut
most harmony prevailed, and all were animated by
one feeling and that was the organization of the
Territon,' by the present Congress and the speedy
extinguishment of the titles.''
B. O'Driscoll acted as president of this meeting
and L. J. Easton as secretary-. Judge C. F. Holly,
who had reported the resolutions quoted above at the
233 'The following paragraphs from the St Louis Democrat of the
twenty-sixth of November, give an account of the call of a great general
meeting of the people of the frontiers in relation to this question:
" "There is no longer any doubt about the certainty of the immediate
organization of Nebraska as a TeixitorT.-. The St. Joseph Gazette comes
to us with its columns freighted with the names of all the frontier citizens
calling for a mass convention on the eighth [ninth] of January to take
measures for carrying out this purpose. Public opinion, the supreme
power in this country calls for the settlement of that fine Territory- in tones
that cannot be misunderstood. We quite concur in the spirit and manner
of the movement Let the people speak on the eighth of January in ac
cents that will startle the indolent and vulgar Senator who opposes them,
in accents thar will remind Congress of its duty  Can there be a
more withering rebuke of the malignant stupidities of Atchison than the
call for the convention, signed by men of even.- shade of politics with
whom patriotism is happily higher than part}?'
"The last sentence in this quotation refers to a declaration made by
Senator Atchison to the effect that he is now determined to oppose the
organization of Nebraska as a Territorj", notwithstanding that at the last
session of Congress he declared himself ready though reluctant to vote
for that measure." Quoted in the Boston Atlas, December 6, 1S53. The
editor of the Atlas apparently was ignorant of Atchison's declarations in
favor of Nebraska made during the summer of 1S53.
-34 December 3, 1853, two days before the 33d Congress met

1 68 THE REPEAL OF
Andrew County meeting, was present and addressed
the meeting. Mr. Easton, acting also as chairman
of the committee on resolutions, reported a long se
ries, favoring "the early organization and settlement
of Nebraska" in accordance with "Hall's bill, or one
similar in provision;" condemning those members
of the last Congress who prevented the passage of
the Nebraska bill; and endorsing Colonel Benton's
doctrine of the right of "immediate" settlement. The
two most important resolutions relate to the subject
of slavery in the new Territory, and these, with the
Andrew County resolutions just quoted, are signifi
cant as indicating a popular demand in Missouri for
the settlement of the slavery question in precisely the
manner later prescribed in the Kansas-Nebraska bill.
"3. Resolved, That we are opposed to the agitation of the
slavery question in the organization of this Territory by any
attempt to repeal the Missouri Compromise, and that without
entering into the discussion of the merits or demerits of that Cora-
promise, or the Compromise Measures, we are willing to abide
by and sustain them.
"4. Resolved, That we are in favor of the people who go
there and settle to determine the question as to whether it shall be
a slave or free State. 2^5 We are unwilling to interfere in that
question, but are content and satisfied with a simple organization
of the Territory and extending the laws of the country over its
settlers." ^36
235 The italics are mine.
236 The other important resolutions were as follows :
"r. Resolved, That we are in favor of the early organization and
settlement of Nebraska Territory, and believe that the present Congress
would consult the will and interest of the great body of the people by
passing a bill extending the laws over that Territory.
"2. Resolved, That in passing a bill to organize that Territory we
are in favor of one known as Hall's bill, or one similar in provisions.
"5. Resolved, That those persons in the last Congress, whoever they

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 169
The Nebraska Convention met at the court
house in St. Joseph, Missouri, on the ninth of
January, 1854. The Convention adopted a long se
ries of resolutions, ^" the majority of them being
may be, that threw obstacles in the way of the passage of a bill to organize
that Territory after it had passed the House deserve the condemnation of
the people. "6. Resolved, That we believe all that part of Nebraska Territory
(which is much the larger portion) not belonging to the Indians
by treaty and [not] marked out to them by metes and bounds is Govern
ment land and as clearly subject to settlement as any other public unsur-
veyed lands 
"8. Resolved, That our people are a law-abiding people and are
not disposed to violate any treaty stipulation of the Government or tres
pass upon Indian lands. . . .
''9. Resolved, That the interests of the red man and of the Govern
ment require the speedy extinguishment of the Indian titles 
"11. Resolved, That we heartily approve of the high and noble and
patriotic course of our neighbors and friends in Iowa for the firm and
decided stand they have taken for the immediate organization of Nebraska
Territory. "12. Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be furnished to each
of our Senators and Representatives in Congress."
A subsequent resolution authorized the chairraan of the meeting to
appoint two hundred delegates to attend the St. Joseph Convention to be
held on the ninth of January. These resolutions may be found in the
Jefferson Inquirer, Dec. 24, 1853, quoted frora the St. Joseph Gazette.
237 The preamble and most important resolutions were as follows:
"Whereas, it is the inalienable right of the people to peaceably as
semble together to express their views in regard to any given topic in a
respectful manner; and
"Whereas, it is the bounden duty of the people's representatives to
respect the views thus given; and
"Whereas, the early organization and settlement of Nebraska Terri
tory is deemed a matter of vast importance and fraught with consequences
alike affecting the interests of the white as well as the red man; and
"Whereas, the geographical position of Missouri and Iowa being more
central for the location of the Pacific railroad through our territory and
being on a direct line with the great cities of commerce on the Atlantic
and California and Oregon on the Pacific, the best Interests of the Republic
would be subserved by the construction of such a road, it is therefore
deemed necessary to securing so desirable a result that Nebraska Territory

IJO THE REPEAL OF
either verbatim or substantial reproductions of the
resolutions of the Andrew County meeting. This se
ries too had a resolution relating to the slavery ques
tion: "Resolved, That we consider the agitation of the slavery
question in connection with the organization of Nebraska territory
dangerous to the peace of the country, fatal to the best interests
of Nebraska itself and even threatening the harmony, if not the
perpetuity of the whole Union.
"Resolved, That in organizing Nebraska territory all who
are now or may hereafter settle there should be protected in all
their rights, leaving questions of local policy to be settled by the
citizens of the territory when they form a state government.
" 238

be settled, thereby enabling protection to be extended to the road and afford
shelter for the thousands annually crossing the plains; we the people of
northwestern Missouri, western Iowa and Nebraska Territory in Convention
assembled do ... .
"Resolve,
"6j. . . . That It is the duty of Congress as early as possible at the
present session to organize Nebraska into a Territory and thus give to her
residents, travellers, traders and citizens the protection of law and the
rights and privileges of a free people.
"8. . . . That while we are in favor of the early extinguishment
of the Indian titles, we believe that delays are dangerous and that the
organization of the Territory should not be delayed for that purpose, but
a government of laws should at once be extended over the people who raay
settle there.
"io  That the law of 1807 in relation to trespassers upon
Public Lands is a dead letter and ought to be repealed by the present
Congress  "
The Convention also appointed a committee of three to draft a me
morial to Congress "urging speedy action on the Nebraska question;" and
voted that a committee of correspondence previously chosen "be requested
to solicit the views of all the members of Congress and other prominent
citizens throughout the Union, and that when obtained they be published
at the discretion of the Committee." The resolutions appear In the Missouri
Republican, January 9, 1854.
238 The italics are mine. The New York Independent for Sept. 25,
1856, contains a contribution by a gentleman who had spent several years

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 171
It may seem strange that the foregoing resolu
tions which are clearly pro-Benton, advocate a solu
tion of the slavery question in the new Territory not
in harmony with the Missouri Compromise which
Benton favored but according to the principle of
popular sovereignty. The explanation lies in the
fact that Benton's position on the slavery question
did not truly represent that of the majority of the
people of Missouri. Although they heartily ap
plauded his efforts in behalf of the Pacific railroad ^"
in the western part of Missouri, giving an account of Kansas affairs
during the three years preceding. Mention is made in this account
of a pro-slavery meeting in Missouri, of which I have been able to find
no other record. "In the latter part of 1853, almost a year before the
passing of the Nebraska bill, a public meeting was held in Platte county,
Missouri, to consider the affairs of Kansas. Atchison made a speech,
and was the master spirit of the meeting, and it was 'Resolved, that if
the Territory shall be opened to settlement, we pledge ourselves to each
other to extend the institutions of Missouri over the Territory, at whatever
sacrifice of blood or treasure.' These resolutions were published In the
Platte Argus. This was long before Douglas had thought of venturing
upon the Repeal  This meeting attracted little public attention at
the time, but it furnishes the key to all the subsequent history. Atchison
has since explained the process by which he bullied and terrified Pierce and
Douglas into the fatal raeasure of repealing the restriction. . . "
239 It will be remembered that the main issue which caused Benton's
defeat in 1849-50 was the Wilmot Proviso, which Benton was represented
as supporting; see Green's letter in Chapter II.
The Legislature which had passed the Jackson Resolutions, adopted
the following "Joint Resolution in relation to the Pacific Railroad," about
the time Benton introduced his first Central Highway bill in the Senate.
"Resolved, By the General Assembly of the State of Missouri as follows:
"§i. That we, the representatives of the people of Missouri view with
lively interest and the utmost pleasure the efforts of our distinguished
Senator in Congress, the Honorable Thomas H. Benton, in furtherance of
the grand project of locating and constructing a national central railroad
from San Francisco, on the Pacific, to St. Louis on the Mississippi, with a
branch to the Columbia river, as evidenced by the notice given by him in

172 THE REPEAL OF
and in behalf of the new Territory, they strongly
favored the settlement of the slavery question in ac
cordance with the principle of popular sovereignty.
It must be remembered that the principle of popular
sovereignty appealed with peculiar force to a western
community like Missouri. Almost three years before
the celebrated Cass-Nicholson letter, the Legislature
of Missouri had formally gone on record in favor of
popular sovereignty as a solution of the question of
slavery in the Territories. In a memorial to Con
gress ^'"' favoring the early annexation of Texas, it
was declared

the Senate of the United States, of his intention to introduce into that body
a bill providing for the construction and location of said road.
"§2. That we cordially approve the course of our distinguished Senator
in relation to this great and national object, and we heartily tender him our
best wishes for his success in the promotion of this great and laudable
national enterprise. Approved, March lo, 1849." — Laws of Missouri,
1848-49, 668.
240 This memorial was passed by the Legislature which elected Benton
to the Senate for the last time, and was approved, Jan. 3, 1845. It is
printed in full, together with the remarks of Benton and Atchison in
approval, in Cong. Globe, xiv, 154-155. See also Senate Journal, 2d Sess.,
28th Cong., 94-95 ; Carr's Missouri, 195. The following editorial ap
peared in the Missouri Republican, Jan. 22, 1854:
'The bill ... as presented by Judge Douglas, attempts to avoid
the agitation of slavery in Congress and to throw its decision upon the
courts and the people who may occupy the Territory, when it shall be
sufficiently populated to be admitted as a State into the Union  The
bill .... affirms a principle which we of Missouri contended for when
we came into the Union and which the nation then conceded to be right.
.... It affirms the right of the people, when they ask to be admitted as
a State to come in with or without the institution of slavery, as to thera,
and not to Congress shall seem most expedient  The Legislature
of this State has since confirmed this principle  We copy the words
of a resolution passed by the Legislature of this State and approved
January 3, 1845  [as quoted above] .... This instruction has
not been repealed or expunged. It stands upon the statute books with all
the force of any unrepealed resolution  Colonel Benton then in the

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 173
"That in the opinion of this General Assembly, a great ma
jority of the people of this State prefer that Texas should be
annexed to the United States without dividing her territory into
slaveholding and non-slaveholding States ; but leaving that question
to be settled by the people who now or hereafter, may occupy the
territory that may be annexed." 241
A county meeting of "the friends of Nebraska"
was held in St. Louis on the day of the St. Joseph
Convention, "composed of the confidential friends
and mouthpieces of" Benton; at least so said Atchi
son. At this meeting speeches were made by W. V.
N. Boy, Thomas L. Price, B. Gratz Brown, A.
Kreckel, H. Dusenbury and John A. Kasson.^''^ A
committee of twenty-four reported the resolutions
through F. P. Blair, Jr., which were unanimously
adopted. The third of these resolutions was as fol
lows:
"Resolved, That we are in favor of a territorial govern
ment for Nebraska, and that we regard all who oppose it upon
whatever pretext, as hostile to the best interests of the State." 243
One fact of importance to note before leaving
this phase of the subject is that the demands of the
Senate, took no appeal from it to the people, has never objected to it since
and now by what right does he refuse to obey this instruction, and insist,
as it is well understood he will insist, that Nebraska should be made a
freesoil Territory and eventually a State into which no slaveholder of
Missouri shall be permitted to enter with his slave property?"
241 The italics are mine.
242 After discovering his name in this connection, I wrote to the Hon.
John A. Kasson asking if he could furnish me with any detailed information
about the political situation in Missouri at this time. His reply in the
negative states: "Your inquiries refer to a period fifty years ago, and to
incidents the memory of which has been overlaid by many later and vital
historical experiences of the country. I resided in St Louis from 1850 to
1857, a period of gestation of bitter party and personal feuds."
243 Quoted in Atchison's letter of June 5, 1854. See Appendix C.

174 THE REPEAL OF
Andrew County and the St. Joseph meetings were
made before the assembling of the 33d Congress,
and that the call for the St. Joseph Convention had
been issued long before the meeting of Congress.
Furthermore, the resolutions of that Convention, al
though adopted five days after Douglas's report of
January 4,^'*'* indicate no knowledge of that report:
indeed, it is probable that no intelligence of the re
port had then reached western Missouri.
Thus far attention has been concentrated upon
the interest displayed by Missourians in the organi
zation of Nebraska Territory. The bill, however,
which ultimately became the Kansas-Nebraska Act
was introduced into Congress by a Senator from the
State of Iowa. This investigation would therefore
be incomplete without some mention of the interest
appearing in that State. Obviously the causes
which enlisted the interest of the people of Iowa in
the new Territory differed from those operating with
the people of Missouri. The interest of the former
was of course not instigated by the question of slav
ery. The meager evidence which has been discov
ered nevertheless indicates that the Iowa interest was
scarcely less profound than that in Missouri. The
chief cause lay, as in the case of the Wyandotts, in
the intimate relation of the new Territory to the pro
posed railroad to the Pacific.
In the "Notes" of Governor Walker of Nebras
ka is found a reference to perhaps the first manifesta
tion of popular interest in Iowa. Referring to the
244 Taken up in Chapter VII.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 175
election of Territorial Delegate in October, 1853,^'*'
Governor Walker says :
"Upon canvassing the returns it was found that a third can
didate was voted for in the Bellevue precinct, in the person of
Hadley D. Johnson, Esq., who received 358 votes. From infor
mation received from that precinct it appeared that Mr. Johnson
was an actual resident of Iowa, and at that time a member of the
Legislature of that State; and an additional circumstance tending
to vitiate the election in this precinct was that a majority of the
voters were actual residents of that State. The officers were com
pelled to reject these returns  "246
A newspaper printed in Missouri and containing
a notice of the election to be held in the Nebraska
country on the eleventh of October had accidentally
come into the possession of this Mr. Johnson only a
few days before the time fixed for the election. Years
afterwards Mr. Johnson published an account of
what then took place, of the interest of the lowans
in the organization of Nebraska, and of his own part
in the enactment of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. As
this is the best evidence which has been discovered
relative to Iowa's interest in the Nebraska move
ment a large part of it is here reproduced. ^''^
"On reading this announcement [of the election for a Dele
gate to Congress] , I immediately communicated the news to prom
inent citizens of Council Bluffs, and it was at once decided that
Iowa should compete for the empty honors connected with the
delegateship. An election at Sarpy's was determined on ; arrange
ments made with the owners of the ferry-boat at that point to
transport the impromptu emigrants to their new homes, and they

245 See pages 150, 151.
246 Connelley's Prov. Gov., 58 ff.
247 Mr. Johnson's account appeared originally as a paper read before
the Nebraska State Historical Society, Jan. 11, 1887; it is printed in
Nebr. State Hist. Soc. Transactions and Reports, il, 85 ff.

176 THE REPEAL OF
were accordingly landed on the west shore of the Missouri river
a few hundred yards above Sarpy's trading house, where, on the
day appointed, an election was held, the result of which may be
learned from the original certificate hereto aimexed, 2+* a copy of
which was sent to the Honorable Bernhart Herm, the member of
the house of representatives from Iowa, by him submitted to the
House, and referred to the committee on elections, but for reasons
obvious to the reader of the proceedings of Congress immediately
following, no report was ever made by that committee in the case.
"I may remark here that I consented with much reluctance
to the use of my name in this connection, and for several reasons:
I was poor and could not well afford to neglect my business and
spend a winter at Washington ; the expenses of the trip I knew
would be a hea\y drain upon my limited exchequer; besides I had
so lately neglected my private affairs by my services at Iowa
City. However, I finally yielded to the earnest request of a
number of my personal friends, who were also ardent friends of
the new scheme, and consented to the use of my name, at the same
time pledging my word that I would proceed to Washington, if
chosen, and do the best I could to advance the cause we had in
hand. In addition to the ballots cast for me for delegate at this
election, the Rev. William Hamilton' received 304 votes for Pro
visional Governor; Dr. Monson H. Clark received 295 for Sec
retary, and H. P. Downs 283 for Treasurer. 249
"These proceedings at Sarpy's landing were followed by va
rious public meetings in Iowa (and also in Missouri) at which
resolutions were adopted, urging the organization of Nebraska
Territon-. Amongst others, meetings were held at Council Bluffs,
St. ilary's, Glenwood, and Sidney, 25o at which the actions at

248 A copy of this certificate is in Connelley's Prov. Gov., 84 n. It
shows that Mr. Johnson received all the votes cast for Delegate, namely, 358.
249 This is the only reference I have found to the Provisional Govem
ment here mentioned.
250 The National Intelligencer of Dec. i, 1853, contains this notice of
the Sidney meeting: "The people of western Iowa are stirring them
selves on the subject of a speedy organization of Nebraska Territory. On
the 7th instant (Nov.) a large meeting of the citizens of three counties
was held at Sidney over which William C. Means of Page County presided.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE

177

Sarpy's were endorsed. Earnest and eloquent speeches were made
by such leading citizens as Hon. W. C. Means and Judge Snyder
of Page County, Judge Greenwood, Hiram P. Bennett, Wm.
McEwen, Col. J. L. Sharp, Hon. A. A. Bradford, L. Lingen-
f alter, C. W. McKissick, Hon. Benjamin Rector, Charles W.
Pierce, Dan H. Solomon,  Downs, I. M. Dews, George Hep-
ner, W. G. English, Geo. P. Stiles, Marshall Turley, Dr. H. M.
Clark, and others.
"In the month of November, Council Bluffs was visited by
Hon. Augustus C. Dodge, Col. Samuel H. Curtis, and other
distinguished citizens of other States, who attended and addressed
meetings of the people of the town, warmly advocating the con
struction of our contemplated railroads, and the organization of
Nebraska Territory. 25i In its issue of December 14, 1853, the
The resolutions of the meeting urge 'an early extinguishment of the Indian
titles therein.' . . . ."
The sarae meeting was noticed in the Boston Journal of Dec. 2, 1853 :
"It is said that the people of western Iowa are moving on the subject of a
speedy organization of the Territory of Nebraska. Three counties held
a meeting on the subject recently and a general convention of citizens
was called. . . . ''
251 The following is an extract from an editorial in the Iowa State
Gazette of Dec. 28, 1853: ". . . . Our readers are aware, many of them,
that Senator Dodge visited the Council Bluff region immediately before
the meeting of Congress. Although we are not aware of his object in so
doing, we may presume it was with reference to these important questions
[Nebraska Territory and the Pacific railroad]. For we observe that he
has already introduced a bill for the organization of the new Territories.
What its details and provisions are we are not prepared to say 
It behooves him to be active and the rest of our delegation likewise, for
the present is big with the fate of Iowa and indeed the whole Northwest."
The interest of Iowa in Nebraska is reflected in the debate upon the
Kansas-Nebraska bill. Senator Dodge said:
". . . . Mr. President, the passage of the bill before us will, In my
judgraent, confer great benefits upon the nation, the West, and especially
the State which I in pari represent. The settlement and occupation of
Nebraska will accomplish for us what the acquisition and peopling of Iowa
did for Illinois. Originally I favored the organization of one territory;
but representations from our constituents, and a raore critical examination
of the subject having an eye to the systems of internal improvement which
must be adopted by the people of Nebraska and Kansas to develop their

178 THE REPEAL OF
Council Bluffs Bugle announced that 'H. D. Johnson, delegate elect
from Nebraska passed through our place on his way to Washington
last week.' " 252
Thus as we approach the month of December,
1853, in which the 33d Congress convened, it
is evident that powerful and geographically related
agencies were at work in the interest of a new terri
torial government west of Missouri and Iowa. It
seems highly improbable that the members of Con
gress who had been conspicuous in the heated local
discussions relating to Nebraska, which in Missouri
resources — satisfies ray colleague who was a member of the Committee
that reported the bill, and myself, that the great interests of the whole
country and especially our State, demand that we should support the
proposition for the establishment of two territories; otherwise the seat of
government and leading thoroughfares must have all fallen south of Iowa.''
— Cong. Globe, xxix, 382.
In the House, Hon. Bernhart Henn, Representative from Iowa, sup
ported the measure because "The bill is of more practical importance to the
State of Iowa, and the people of the district I represent, than to any other
State or constituency in the Union." — Cong. Globe, xxix, 885.
252 Another meeting evidently was held at Council Bluffs In Deceraber.
The Iowa State Gazette speaks of a meeting being held there on the
seventeenth, composed of "a respectable number of citizens of Pot
tawatomie County." This meeting adopted the following resolution:
"Resolved, That we heartily approve of the Nebraska Convention to be
held at St. Joseph [Mo.J, January 8 [9], 1854, and that we appoint
twenty-five delegates to attend said Convention pledging that this sen
atorial district will at all times be ready to 'roll on the Nebraska ball'
until the Indian titles are extinguished and the Territory organized  "
Much enthusiasm prevailed, says the account, "and with three times three
cheers for Nebraska and its friends in Congress, the Convention adjourned
to meet on the return of the delegates frora the St. Joseph Convention.''
In January following, the Democrats of Pottawattamie County adopted
the following resolution: "Resolved that the iraraediate organization of
Nebraska and the establishment of n territorial government over its citizens
is a question of national importance and greatly affecting the interests of
western Iowa, and we should be pleased to have an expression of the
people of the whole State upon the subject through their delegates at the
State Convention." — Ibid., Jan. 11, 1854.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 1 79
had become more heated and acrimonious as Decem
ber drew near, would abruptly drop all their personal
animosities and lose their active interest in Nebraska.
On the contrary, the belief and expectation that all
the questions connected with the Nebraska movement
arising in the West would be transferred to the halls
of Congress is indicated unmistakably in the follow
ing editorial from the lou-a State Gazette. -" Al
though apparently ignorant of Senator Atchison'^
recent pledges, the Editor said:
"The formation of these new Territories will probably be
one of the most exciting topics of discussion during the present
session of Congress. From recent indications and from what took
place at the last session we maj' anticipate considerable opposition
to the measure in Congress, while on the part of our western
population there is great longing to have the rich lands of the
Platte and Kansas valleys laid open for settlement. Leaving out
that small class of our citizens who are thus directly interested
in the settlement of this Territorj-, the principal feeling upon the
subject is among the active pro-slaverj' and anti-slavery men. The
former will oppose its constitution on the ground that under the
Missouri Compromise it cannot come into the Union as a slave
State and must therefore add to the already preponderating in
fluence of their adversaries; the latter, or anti-sla^en" part}', will
urge the formation of the Territory' as a means of 'extending the
area of freedom' and striking another blow at the slave power.
That this is the correct \-iew of the subject is evident from what
has already taken place. Senator Atchison at the last session
opposed the formation of the Territory avowedly because the Com
promise precludes the 'peculiar institution' from it; he will prob
ably take the same course at the present session. On the other
hand. Col. Benton who is suspected of not being over friendly to
the 'institution' will war to the knife in favor of the Territory;
it is in fact one of his hobbies and no man plies the whip and spur

253 Dec 8, 1853.

l8o THE REPEAL OF
harder on that kind of cattle than he does; so we may expect to
see considerable of a fight upon the subject. As to the Indian
title, that can be easily disposed of, as the Commissioner has re
cently found them quite disposed to the transfer of it, 'for a con
sideration.' "
That the same expectation was shared by the
newspapers of the East, both North and South, there
is abundant evidence. The day after the opening of
the 33d Congress, ^" the Boston Atlas, the great Whig
organ of Massachusetts, thus commented on the sit
uation, apparently without knowledge of Senator
Atchison's recent change of attitude toward Ne
braska. "In spite of the undisguised nature of the opposition of Sen
ator Atchison of Missouri to the organization of this Territory,
it is very apparent that this event can hardly be much longer
delayed. He contrived to defeat the necessary measures for this
purpose in the Senate after they had been passed by the House at
the last session. He did not hesitate to found his opposition upon his
unwillingness that it should be organized as a free Territory 
"Much alarm has been entertained or expressed in certain
quarters lest there might be danger of a disregard of this law
[the Missouri restriction] and a settled purpose exist to introduce
slavery into Nebraska in defiance of it and to make it a slave-
holding Territory. We have not shared this alarm for we have
no belief that any attempt, if seriously contemplated, can meet
with any success in nullifying a law, the existence of which no
one disputes, the binding force of which no one pretends to deny."
Reference is then made to the meeting of the
citizens of three counties in Iowa, and it is stated that
"a strong popular feeling has been awakened at the
West in favor of the organization of the territorial
government and the settlement of the Territory."
254 Dec. 6, 1853.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE i8l
As early as November 15, 1853, the Editor
of the anti-slavery New York Evening Post clear
ly anticipated that the organization of Nebraska
would be attempted at the next session of Congress
and incidentally indicated his misinformation regard
ing events in Missouri :
"It is curious to see how much pains are being taken in
certain quarters to prepare the public mind for the rejection of
the application to organize the Territory of Nebraska 
Mr. Atchison .... has declared his determination to oppose
the early organization of the Territory of Nebraska and the open
ing of the country to white colonists  When pressed in
debate for his reasons, he intimated that he was unwilling to
consent to the organization of another Territory on the principle
of the Ordinance of 1787  This is the secret of the
intrigues which are now on foot to delay, under various pretexts,
the formation of a regular government in Nebraska, and to this
are owing the endeavors which are so industriously making to
create the impression in the first place, that they are occupied by
Indian tribes who must first be removed before the settlement of
this Territory can commence. Mr. Manypenny, the Indian Com
missioner at Washington, seems to enter into Mr. Atchison's
views in regard to this question and labors to render him all aid
in his power in keeping Nebraska out of the sisterhood of Terri
tories, and of course out of the Union as long as possible." 255
The Washington correspondent of the New
255 The following occurs In a letter from Alexander S. Latty to Salmon
P. Chase, dated, Paulding, O., Nov. i, 1853, found among the Chase papers
in the Library of Congress but not published in the Chase Correspondence.
After urging different reasons against Chase's contemplated resignation from
the Senate, the writer adds: "... This [resign] I hope you will not do.
There are many other reasons why you ought not to do it. The Pacific
railroad, the organization of Nebraska, and many other kindred measures
will require your assistance and I have no doubt but your successor would
be found the willing tool of Mr. Atkinson [Atchison] to defeat the latter
measure. If either of two certain gentlemen from northwestern Ohio
should succeed you, I am positive that they would do so and they are aspir
ants for the office at present."

1 82 THE REPEAL OF
York Journal of Commerce -^* said in commenting
upon the recommendation of Commissioner Many-
penny that a territorial government be established
over Nebraska: "^
"While upon the subject [Manypenny's report] it may be
well to mention that the territorial committees of both Houses
have been formed with a view to prevent, if possible, the intrusion
of the slavery question into the question of organizing Nebraska
into a Territory. It is difficult to see why any one should wish
to raise the question. Col. Benton proposes of course to estab
lish the Territory, and admit the State under the provisions of the
Missouri Compromise which prohibits slavery north of the line
of 36° 30', which is the boundary line between Missouri and
Arkansas. It seems, however, that Air. Atchison of Missouri will
move to repeal that restriction in regard to Nebraska, 258 a Terri
tory that will be adequate for several States  The [Wash
ington] Sentinel remarks that the committee {i.e. the House com
mittee) will suppress slavery agitation altogether by abolitionists
and freesoilers. True, but may not objection come from the other
side? The freesoilers cannot wish anything else than that the
matter should stand as it is. We shall see whether this and the
Senate committee will propose a repeal of the Missouri restriction
for that will certainly create agitation."
From the foregoing evidence it is fair to infer
that before Mr. Douglas reported the Kansas-Ne
braska bill in January, 1854, there was knowledge on
the part of leading newspapers and their readers,
East and West, North and South, that Colonel Ben
ton was actively contesting the reelection of Senator
Atchison; that the immediate organization of Ne
braska Territory and the question of slavery therein
had become important issues in the Missouri Sena-
256 Writing Dec. 14, in issue of Dec. 15, 1853.
257 Contained In his report of Nov. 9, 1853.
258 The italics are raine.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 1 83
torial fight, and that Colonel Benton would force the
Nebraska territorial question upon the attention of
Congress; that there was also widespread knowledge
of Senator Atchison's determination to oppose any
bill for the organization of Nebraska which did not
repeal the Missouri Compromise.
With all these forces at work — lowans, Mis
sourians and Indians — the Nebraska question was
certain to assume in the 33d Congress an importance
greater than in any preceding session, and in all prob
ability would have caused a renewal of the slavery
agitation even if Senator Douglas had not been in
Congress. That the establishment of a territorial
government in Nebraska, whether with or without
the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, could have
been delayed longer seems incredible. If the Terri
tory should be organized with the repeal of the Com
promise, it would mean a triumph for Senator Atch
ison over his antagonist, Benton ; if organized with-.
out the Repeal, it would be a victory for Benton. In
either case, Atchison was bound to use every effort to
make good his pledges upon the stump in Missouri.
The question would inevitably come before the
Committee on Territories, and Senator Douglas
would therefore be compelled to take one side or
the other of the issues raised by Atchison and Benton.
It is highly significant that in all the foregoing
evidence of a western origin of the Repeal the name
of Senator Douglas has scarcely been mentioned. It
is also highly improbable that he could have had any
connection with the Nebraska movements in Missou
ri, Iowa and Nebraska, and no connection with the

184 THE REPEAL OF
Repeal movement in Missouri, while these move
ments were converging upon the 33d Congress. On
the fourteenth of May, 1853, he sailed from New
York City in the steamship Pacific, bound for Eu
rope; ^^' and the entire summer and autumn of 1853,
a period of six months, while Benton and Atchison
were furiously fighting over Nebraska and the Re
peal in Missouri, he spent in European travel. He
did not reach Washington until just a month before
the 33d Congress convened. ^^° The inference there
fore seems not unwarranted that, in those pre-cable
days, he remained ignorant of the development of the
Nebraska question and of the Repeal agitation until
very shortly before Congress assembled.
This inference is strongly supported by a confi
dential letter which Senator Douglas wrote to his
political friends, the Editors of the Illinois State Reg
ister ^^^ — a Democratic newspaper published at
Springfield — a week after his return to Washington
and less than a month before Congress opened. It
was obviously intended to provide his journalistic
friends with ammunition, so that Senator Douglas
passes in review the measures which were likely to
come up for consideration and determination at the
259 National Intelligencer, May 17, 1853. Mr. Douglas sailed in
company with Hon. Joseph R. Chandler, a Representative from Pennsyl
vania, and Hon. George Briggs, a late Representative frora New York. A
son of this Mr. Chandler writes that his father's papers which raight be
of value in this connection have all been destroyed or scattered.
260 "Hon. Stephen A. Douglas has returned from his extended European
tour, and arrived In this city in good health." — National Intelligencer,
Nov. 5, 1853; Wash. corr. of N. Y. Journal of Commerce, writing Nov. 7,
in issue of Nov. 9, 1853.
261 Walker and Lanphier.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 185
approaching session of Congress and explains briefly
his attitude upon them : ^"
"Washington, Nov. nth, '53.
"Private."My dear Friends,
"Why don't you send me the Register? I have not seen
a copy for more than six months. I am certainly a subscriber
to it, altho I may never have paid my subscription. Send me the
Register that I may see what you are doing and saying. I know
all is right and that the paper takes the right course, yet I want
to read it so much the more on that account. I have a few words
to say personal to myself. I see many of the newspapers are
holding me up as a candidate for the next Presidency. I do not
wish to occupy that position. I do not think I will be willing
to have my name used. I think such a state of things will exist
that I shall not desire the nomination. Yet I do not intend to do
any act which will deprive me of the control of my own action.
I shall remain entirely non-committal and hold myself at liberty
to do whatever my duty to my principles and my friends may re
quire when the time for action arrives. Our first duty is to the
cause — the fate of individual politicians is of minor consequence.
The party is in distracted condition and it requires all our wisdom,
prudence and energy to consolidate its power and perpetuate its
principles. Let us leave the Presidency out of view for at least two
years to come.
"I deem it due to you as my old and confidential friend to
say thus much that you may understand my position. The ad
ministration has made some mistakes — indeed many mistakes in
its appointments, yet I have no personal grievances to complain
of. I did not expect to be pleased with the great body of appoint
ments and have not been disappointed. Yet I shall not judge the

262 This letter was discovered by Professor Allen Johnson of Bowdoin
College, author of Stephen A. Douglas: A Study in American Politics
in which the greater part of the letter appears. It is tlirough the kindness
of Professor Johnson in furnishing me a complete and accurate copy of
the letter that I am able to reproduce it here, vs'ith the permission of The
Macmillan Company.

1 86 THE REPEAL OF
administration by its appointments. If it stands firmly by the
faith, if it is sound and faithful in its principles and measures,
it will receive my hearty and energetic support. I still have faith
that it will prove itself worthy of our support. It has difficulties
ahead, but it must meet them boldly and fairly. There is a
surplus revenue which must be disposed of and the Tariff reduced
to a legitimate revenue standard. It will not do to allow the
surplus to accumulate in the Treasury and thus create a pecuniary
revulsion that would overwhelm the business arrangements and
financial affairs of the country. The River and Harbor question
must be met and decided. Now in my opinion is the time to put
those great interests on a more substantial and secure basis by a
well-devised system of Tonnage duties. I do not know what the
administration will do on this question, but I hope they will have
the courage to do what we all feel to be right. The Pacific Rail
Road will also be a disturbing element. It will never do to com
mence making Rail Roads by the federal government under any
pretext of necessity. We can grant alternate sections of land as
we did for the Central Road, but not a dollar from the National
Treasury. These are the main questions and my opinions are
foreshadowed as you are entitled to know them. Let me hear
from you often and freely.
"Remaining truly your friend,
"S. A. Douglas."
The significance of this letter lies chiefly in the
fact that there is no mention of the organization of
Nebraska Territory, or of squatter sovereignty, or
of the applicability to the political situation of 1854
of any principle derived from the Compromise meas
ures of 1850. The inference is not unwarranted that
the injection of the slavery agitation into the Kansas-
Nebraska bill was unexpected by Douglas as late as
three weeks before the opening of the first session of
the 33d Congress.
But if Senator Douglas did not perceive the con-

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 187
nection between the Compromise measures of 1850
and the political situation in 1853-54, there were not
a few who did.
There is a widely current but erroneous notion
that the doctrine of "repeal by supersedure" incor
porated in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, was a device
invented by Senator Douglas to meet a sudden politi
cal emergency. This doctrine, briefly stated, was
that the Compromise measures of 1850 were designed
to establish a new principle for the settlement of the
slavery question in all future Territories, which "su
perseded" or was "inconsistent with" the old idea of
a geographical line dividing slave from free territory,
embodied in the Compromise of 1820. This doctrine
was not the invention of Senator Douglas. It had
been previously formulated by at least three Demo
cratic newspapers. One was perhaps the most influ
ential Democratic paper in the North; the
other two were influential Democratic papers in
the South. In their editorial columns they had
expressly applied this doctrine to the situation pre
sented to Congress by the Nebraska territorial move
ment. This had occurred more than a month before
the doctrine was first proclaimed in Congress by Mr.
Douglas's report accompanying the Kansas-Nebraska
bill, January 23, 1854. There is not the slightest evi
dence that Mr. Douglas had in any degree "inspired"
these press utterances. Moreover, they assume that
the problem before Congress is directly the result of
political conditions in Missouri.

1 88 THE REPEAL OF
The following is an editorial of the Richmond
Enquirer: ^"
"From present indications the proposition to establish a terri
torial government in Nebraska will be made the occasion for a
renewal of anti-slavery agitation in the Federal legislature. It
may be well, therefore, in advance to inform the public of the
issues involved in this question 
"When the conquest of California and New Mexico again
brought the question of territorial extension before Congress, the
representatives of the North repudiated the Missouri Compromise
which they had theretofore used to the detriment of the South,
and by enforcing an absolute prohibition of slavery by Congressional
enactment, denied to States south of the Compromise line the
privilege of determining the condition of their own social system.
This shameless violation of a solemn agreement by a party which
monopolized all the benefits and repudiated all the burdens of the
compact affords but one illustration of the uniform and persistent
perfidy of the North in its warfare against the institutions of the
South. "But this was not the only instance of the infraction of the
Missouri Compromise by the North. When the bill for the estab
lishment of a territorial government in Oregon came before Con
gress, the representatives of the South recognized the validity of
the Missouri Compromise and were ready to submit to its legiti
mate operation, but .... the representatives of the North
resolved to repudiate the Missouri Compromise and to introduce
the Wilmot Proviso into the Oregon bill. That proposition was
made and was met by a counter proposition declaring that slavery
was excluded from Oregon by operation of the Missouri Compro
mise. The amendment was rejected and the representatives of
the North in a spirit of insolent triumph resolved to compel the
South to swallow the Wilmot Proviso 
"Thus did they deliberately repudiate the Missouri Compro-

263 Quoted In the Mississippian of Dec. 23, 1853. See also the Wash.
corr. of the New York Herald, Jan. 2, 1854. Compare the phraseology
here used with Douglas's reply to the Appeal of the Independent Dera-
ocrats, Jan. 30, 1854, Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt. i, 275.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 189
mise by asserting an independent and inconsistent principle and
by refusing to discharge the obligations which it imposed in favor
of the South  But the whole story is not yet told. We
find the North now after having rejected the Missouri Compro
mise and after denying by a vote in Congress its efficacy to exclude
slavery from territory north of 36° 30', reasserting now the
validity of the Compromise which it had repudiated and invoking
the aid of an obsolete principle to exclude slavery from the
Territory of Nebraska. But in regard to Nebraska the North
commits an infraction not of the Missouri Compromise alone, but
violates also the spirit and intent of the Compromise of 1850
which leaves a State the right to prohibit or sanction slavery.
.... To preclude the possibility that Nebraska in organizing
a State government may choose to authorize slavery, the North
now proposes to force upon it a territorial government which
prohibits slavery. In any event by foul means or fair, slavery
must be excluded from Nebraska.
"In regard to Nebraska at present the struggle between the
pro-slavery and anti-slavery party is whether Congress shall forbid
the existence of slavery or whether the decision of the question
shall be left to the people in organizing a State government. Mr.
Benton, the leader of the Abolitionists, insists on the immediate
establishment of a territorial government which shall prohibit
slavery. Mr. Atchison, the faithful champion of the South, con
tends that the people of Nebraska in organizing a State govern
ment shall determine whether slavery shall be admitted or ex-
cludedl Peopled by immigrants from Missouri and by the fer
tility of its soil inviting the labor of the negro, Nebraska if
allowed the free exercise of its own discretion will soon apply for
admission as a slave State. It is to prevent this natural, and if
justice be done, inevitable result, that Mr. Benton, at the instiga
tion of the Abolitionists, invokes the aid of the General Govern
ment to exclude slavery from Nebraska. We have confidence,
however, that this free soil platform will be baffled by the efforts
of General Atchison, than whom the South has not a more honest,
intrepid and vigilant friend." ^^'*

264 The italics are mine.

190 THE REPEAL OF
The following appeared as an editorial in the
Mississippian : ^^'
"The question of the establishment of a territorial government
for Nebraska which has been raised in Congress .... will put
to the test the merits claimed for the Compromise settlement of
1850 by its Southern advocates. It is well known that the South
acquiesced in the Compromise measures of 1850 (notwithstanding
their practical effect was to exclude her from a full participation
in the benefits of the territories acquired from Mexico) on the
construction placed upon it by its champions that the settlement
established the principle that the people of a Territory should
hereafter decide for themselves when they came to be admitted
as a State whether or not slavery should exist within its bounds. 266
The advocates of the Compromise contended that this principle
was clearly and definitively settled and as the price of it they were
willing to submit to the admission of California into the Union,
notwithstanding the irregularity of the proceedings that led to it,
with a constitution inhibiting slavery. They held that the estab
lishment of the principle as the permanent policy of the government
would hereafter produce results highly favorable to the interests of
the South; that in future, no claim would be set up by the North
to a power on the part of the Federal Government to prohibit
slavery in the Territories, nor to a right to refuse to admit new
States because they tolerated the institution; that the Wilmot
Proviso and all similar schemes having for their object the restric
tion of slavery within its present bounds with a view to its ultimate
extermination, would be urged no more; or if urged at all, urged
but to call down upon the heads of their authors the execration
of the whole country.
"It was with this explanation of the main features of the
Compromise settlement of 1820 [sic, 1850?] and of the conse
quence which would flow from it that the Southern people in the
earnestness of their desire to cultivate amicable relations with their
brethren of the North consented to acquiesce in, or abide by, that
series of measures. In reply to the arguments that by the law

265 Dec. 30, 1853.
266 The italics are mine.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 191
admitting Missouri into the Union slavery is prohibited north of
36° 30' and that .but little could be expected favorable to the
South (admitting the principle of non-intervention to have been
settled) we were told that the North had covenanted henceforth
to disregard or to annul the restriction in the future management
of Territories whose geographical bounds otherwise rendered them
subject to it.
"The question of organizing the Territory of Nebraska brings
the matter to a test. The region lies north of the line fixed by
the Missouri Compromise. That law has never been repealed,
but the settlement which led to its adoption, the conditions on
which it was agreed to, were repudiated in 1850, when the North
felt it to be to her interest to repudiate them. And now the
question arises, will she require the enforcement of the law of
1820, or will she stand by the settlement of 1850? ....
"We are .... assured .... that the anti-slaveryites will
again fall back upon that repudiated settlement and claim the
benefit of the clause inhibiting slavery .... north of 36° 30'
in organizing Nebraska Territory  "
On the tenth of December the following editorial
appeared in the Albany (N. Y.) Argus:
"Among the subjects to which the attention of Congress is
likely to be called at an early day is the organization of Nebraska
Territory. A vast deal of excitement and unnecessary palaver has
been gotten up under the auspices of certain political manoeuvrers
in Missouri and other western States upon this subject. The
Missouri Democrat, and a few other prints in that interest [Ben
tonian] have especially devoted themselves to an agitation of the
subject; and if their statements might be credited it would appear
that a tremendous combination and conspiracy had been formed
at the South for the purpose of depriving Nebraska of legal
government at the hands of Congress.
"There are two or three questions of no little moment in
volved in the matter, and it is due to those of our citizens who
have emigrated to those Territories and who are awaiting the
constitutional protection of the Federal Government, that they
should be determined with as little delay as possible 

192 THE REPEAL OF
There is also a question whether the precedent of non-interference
with negro slavery, as established in the Territories by the Com
promise measures shall be adhered to, 267 or whether the prohibition
of that institution shall be confirmed by Congress. It is possible
that the subject may create some sectional feeling on the part of
the unrepentant devotees of the Wilmot Proviso  "268
It is interesting and important to note the inter
pretation placed by the New York Evening Post of
the same day upon the few sentences in this editorial
referring to the precedent established by the Com
promise of 1850:
"The Albany Argus of this morning intimates that there is a
preliminary matter to be settled which it thus states :
" 'There is also a question whether the precedent of non
interference with negro slavery as established in territories by the
Compromise measures shall be adhered to, or whether the prohibi
tion shall be confirmed by Congress.'
"Here is a new interpretation of the Compromise opening
a new quarrel, if there should be audacity enough in any quarter
to adopt it. It is now contended, it seems, that the Compromise
of 1850 has repealed the Missouri Compromise prohibiting slavery
267 The italics are mine.
268 The following occurs in an editorial in the St. Louis Intelligencer
(Whig), entitled, "Non-Intervention," as early as Nov. 10, 1850: ". . . .
Let it be understood as a cardinal principle with both parties, that the
people of the new States and Territories shall in all cases decide for
themselves without the intervention of Congress, whether slavery shall
exist among them  In conclusion we would remind the Whigs
that in maintaining the doctrine of non-intervention they are in fact only
carrying out faithfully the spirit of the late compromise measures, which are
predicated upon the hypothesis that Congress will not interfere with the
question of slavery in the Territories, but will leave the people to settle
the question for themselves. If Whigs and Democrats are faithful to the
compromise they must of necessity maintain the doctrine of non-intervention.
If this doctrine is abandoned — if we surrender this truly national ground,
then we have no common platform on which Northem and Southern
Whigs can stand, and the consequence will be that we will be split into
sectional and discordant factions." See also editorial columns of the
Washington Union, Dec. 4 and 17, 1853.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 193
in the country north of 36° 30'. ^69 At the last session Mr.
Atchison, hostile as he was to the founding of a civil government
in Nebraska, acknowledged that there was no way of setting aside
the provisions of the Missouri Compromise. A method of getting
rid of it has now, it seems, been invented, but we do not believe
that it will ever find much countenance in Congress."
Again on the fourteenth of December, the Al
bany Argus had this even more explicit editorial :
"The Compromise measures of 1850 which so opportunely
quieted the dangerously excited jealousies of the different States
and preserved the Union from the imminent hazard of Civil War,
embraced one precedent which their framers doubtless intended
should stand as a guide and landmark for all time. We allude
to the peculiar feature of the laws organizing the territorial Gov
ernments of New Mexico and Utah. In the language of Mr.
Webster, 'a refusal of all restrictions upon the subject of slavery
was incorporated' in them; and the words of the bills themselves,
as reported by the Committee of Thirteen, expressly provided that
'no law should be passed' by the respective territorial legislatures,
'in respect to African slavery.' It was upon this basis of non
intervention with the social institutions of these half colonial, half
self-governing dependencies that North and South united. It was
only upon such a compromise, assured by the labors and most
patriotic minds of the country, that peace and union can be
preserved. "A precedent thus laid down can scarcely be departed from
without peril in the future. By it the citizens of a Territory
are left free, at the moment of framing a State constitution, to
choose and establish for themselves such domestic institutions as
accord best with their convenience and their previous preferences
or habits. The Federal Government exempts and separates itself
from all connection with, or responsibility for, legislation upon the
subject of slavery. The principle of self-government is vindicated.
The centralizing tendency of our federal system is counteracted.
The assumption of power to legislate where there is no representa
tion is avoided. Such are the results of the far-reaching and
269 The italics are raine.

194 THE REPEAL OF
statesmanlike doctrine of the 'Nicholson letter' carried into prac
tical operation.
"Such, as we understand it, is all that is claimed in any
quarter, in relation to the proposed organization of Nebraska.
The Missouri Compromise undertook to provide on the part of
Congress where slavery should and where it should not exist.
The Compromise of 1850 established the precedent that without
interference from Congress it should exist wherever the people
of a State should have established it  "270
Thus in the month of December, 1853, almost
at the psychological moment for utilization by Sen
ator Atchison and Senator Douglas, had the doctrine
of supersedure been definitely formulated and specif
ically applied to Nebraska Territory.

270 Two days later [December i6] the Argus had this edito
rial: ". . . The Compromise men of the North do not hesitate
to express it as their preference that Nebraska should prohibit slavery as
emphatically as the State of New York has done. But it must be done
by the people themselves interested, in proper time and when the population
of the incoming State shall begin to be fixed and settled. They stand
by the principle of the Nicholson letter of General Cass now and hereafter,
and insist that by that rule all future disputes shall be settled. The bill
for the organization of the new Territory now before the Senate is under
stood to reaffirm the exclusive and invidious legislation of the Missouri
Compromise, and no friend of the peace and permanence of our Union
can fail to reprobate and oppose the relighting of a flame which cannot
be stifled by official assurances and which may defy another attempt to stay
its ravages."

CHAPTER VII

The Congressional Aspects of the Missouri Contest— The Ne
braska Bill in the 33d Congress— The Evidence of Washing
ton Correspondents-Pressure upon Douglas to Champion the
Repeal— The Influence of Senator Atchison-Report of Jan
uary 4, 1854-Dixon's Amendment— The Administration.
Having traced the local beginnings of the Ne
braska territorial movement in the West, it now be
comes necessary to take up the Congressional aspects
of the Missouri fight and show their connection with
the early legislative history of the Kansas-Nebraska
bill. On December 5, 1853, the day on which the 33d
Congress opened. Senator A. C. Dodge of Iowa gave
notice of his intention to introduce a bill for the or
ganization of a territorial government for Nebras
ka, ^''^ which he did introduce on the fourteenth. The
bill was immediately referred to the Committee on
Territories of which Mr. Douglas was the chairman
as well as the most prominent and influential mem
ber. "^ In the House a Nebraska bill, practically
271 Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt i, i.
272 Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt. i, 44. This Committee consisted of Doug
las, of Illinois, Gen. Sam Houston, of Texas, Robert W. Johnson, of Arkan
sas, and George W. Jones, of Iowa, Democrats ; and John Bell, of Tennes
see, and Edward Everett, of Massachusetts, Whigs. The Free and the
Slave States were thus equally represented on_this^very important Com
mittee.

196 THE REPEAL OF
the duplicate of Senator Dodge's bill, was introduced
by Hon. J. G. Miller of Missouri on the twenty-sec
ond of December, ^" and immediately referred to
the Committee on Territories of which Hon. W. A.
Richardson of Illinois was chairman.
The real significance of these facts has been
missed by historians who, approaching the origin of
the Repeal through the pages of the Congressional
Globe, have been unduly impressed with the prom
inent part played by Senator Douglas. They have
assumed that it originated with a Senator who had
spent the summer and early autumn of 1853 in
Europe, and had returned to Washington only a
month before Congress met; and who has left good
evidence that the reopening of the slavery agitation
in connection with Nebraska Territory was unex
pected by him three weeks before Congress con
vened. ^'''* Whereas the fact is that the questions in
volved in the Nebraska territorial movement were
forced upon the attention of the committees of which
Mr. Douglas and his colleague in the House were
the chairmen, possibly against their will and appar
ently without much foreknowledge on the part of
Senator Douglas, by representatives of the two States
most deeply interested.
It is not strange that a great degree of mystery
should heretofore seem to have surrounded the re
peal of the time-honored Missouri Compromise.
The difficulty has been to get behind the scenes and
discover what was going on in and around the halls
273 Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt. i, 87.
274 The letter to Walker and Lanphier, quoted in preceding chapter.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 197
of Congress between the fifth of December, and the
twenty-third of January. ^" The pages of the Con
gressional Globe record only results. Of the process
es by which those results are achieved, there is seldom
any record. Politicians, as well as the Almighty,
often "move in a mysterious way" their "wonders
to perform." One cannot expect, in the nature of
the case, to get much evidence of what was occurring
in the corridors and committee rooms at the Capitol,
and at the lodgings of Senators and Representatives.
Nevertheless we are not left entirely in the dark.
One source of information little used by previous
writers sheds considerable light upon what was tak
ing place outside the Senate Chamber and the Hall
of Representatives. Upon the testimony of the
"Washington Correspondents" of the great news
papers of the day, it must be admitted, implicit re
liance for accuracy cannot be placed ; but in the ab
sence of contradicting evidence, their testimony may
be entitled to greater weight than would otherwise
be the case. Especially will this be true if their
testimony fits with surprising exactness into the facts
presented in the preceding chapters.
"Notice has been given in Congress of the in
troduction of a bill for the creation of a territorial
government for Nebraska," wrote "Fairfax," the
Washington Correspondent of the Richmond En
quirer within a week after the opening of Congress.^^*
To "Fairfax" it was plain that Congress would wit-
27S That is to say, between the opening of Congress and the reporting
of the Kansas-Nebraska bill in the Senate.
276 Writing Dec. ii, in issue of Dec. 16, 1853.

198 THE REPEAL OF
ness a renewal of the slavery agitation as a direct re
sult of political conditions in Missouri.
"This subject," he went on to say, "is one of great interest
and will create much feeling. The freesoilers led on by Mr. Ben
ton will make every effort to hasten on a territorial organization,
hoping thereby to be able to exclude slavery from it. This gen
tleman announced some time ago in Missouri that Nebraska was
open for settlement  The facts relating to the matter should
be understood and the objects of Mr. Benton and those who
act with him cannot be mistaken. To prevent the Southerners
from carrying their property into Nebraska, to have another
free State touching the slave State of Missouri, to influence the
next August elections in Missouri, and the presidential campaign
of 1856: these are the objects of Mr. Benton and his freesoil
allies." Writing ten days later the same Correspondent
again called attention to the subject of Nebraska and
to Mr. Atchison's attitude : ^"
". . . . The President of the Senate, Mr. Atchison, is pledged
by his speeches before the people of Missouri to move the repeal
of the law prohibiting slavery in the Territory north of the parallel
of 36° 30'. He will oppose the Nebraska territorial bill and
insist upon the admission of slavery into the Territory, if it be
established at all, both on the original constitutional ground, and
also upon the ground that it would be prejudicial to the interests
of Missouri to be surrounded by a cordon of free States. Mr.
Douglas will soon report the Nebraska bill and we shall witness
a renewal thereupon of slavery agitation. In fine as long as slavery
exists it wUl be a subject of political or religious or sectional or
philanthropic agitation. Let it be known that at all events the
great feature of the opening of the 33d Congress is the slavery
discussion and that too in a House remarkable beyond its prede
cessors for men of experience and moderation and general ability."

277 Writing Dec. 24, in issue of Dec. 26, 1853. The italics are mine.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 199
Even the distant Missouri Republican had its
Correspondent at Washington.^'*
"Old Bullion was not so far out," he wrote, "when he said
slavery and Nebraska would be the questions of the session. The
proceedings in respect to the Territories are yet somewhat vague
and indefinite but some very interesting and important propositions
have been laid before the Committee by the outsiders who assume
to regulate their deliberations; and from the present aspect of this
subject, I am inclined to think that the freesoilers have rather
caught a Tartar with this Nebraska question and don't know
what to do with him. It is well known that Mr. Atchison, Col.
Manypenny and the conservatives on the question that lies under
and beyond the organization of Nebraska were willing to waive the
agitation this winter  Now, however, the ball is opened.

278 Writing Dec. 31, in issue of Jan. 7, 1854. Almost a week before
this correspondent had written: "The war between Col. Benton on the
one hand, and Atchison, Gwin [Senator from Cal.], Phelps, Lamb [two
Representatives from Missouri], and the general body of the regular
Democracy on the other hand, goes merrily on. Nebraska and the Pacific
railroad may be considered the field of strife, the seat in the Senate, and
sundry local offices in Missouri, the bones over which the growling and
fighting is immediately going on. A few days since, Mr. Benton made a
characteristic article in the Intelligencer assailing Senator Gwin and the
officers in the army because Gwin had read letters from some of the
latter declaring that the more southern route was the best for the railroad
by a course of reasoning clear, direct, and conclusive as a buffalo trail
to a salt lick. Col. Benton showed that all the opposition to his central
route sprang from a deadly hostility to hira and Fremont, which hostility
originated in the fact that they had not come into public life through the
West Point Gate. Dr. Gwin replies in four columns of the same paper
charging several things upon Benton and among the rest alleging that his
central route is a humbug which if persevered in will carry the railroad
entirely out of Missouri. Somebody remarked to Mr. Benton yesterday that
Gwin's reply had rather used hira up, to which he is said to have re
sponded: 'Sir, I will slice him into fragments. Sir, I will demolish him.
Yes, Sir!' . . . . Mr. Benton with all his talents and inforraation on
public affairs is like the 'fretful porcupine' pointing a quill, often tipped
with gall, at every passer-by. The destiny of the sons of Ishmael seems
to be his, 'he has tumed his hands against every man and every man's
hand is against him!'" In issue of Dec. 23, 1853- Compare this last with
Rogers's Benton, 315 ff.

200 THE REPEAL OF
The freesoilers have set forth their program, which is 'Nebraska
immediately if not sooner.' . . . ."
It is not an unwarranted inference from this com
munication that some pressure was being brought to
bear upon the Committee on Territories — which, so
far as practical legislation was concerned, meant Mr.
Douglas — to report the Nebraska bill in such a
form that it would bear a 'direct relation to the po
litical situation in Missouri. Indeed one might very
reasonably expect that such pressure would be
brought to bear on Senator Douglas. We have seen
that the Nebraska territorial question was bound to
and did come before the Committee on Territories
when Congress met. Senator Douglas was thus
obliged to act, and to act either with the conservative,
slavery-restrictionist element in the Democratic par
ty, or with the radical, pro-slavery wing. He him
self declared afterwards that he had been no "vol
unteer" in the matter: "I have been Chairman of
the Committee on Territories for the past ten years,"
he said, "and it was my duty to act in this matter and
bring forward this bill. I was no volunteer in this
matter. It devolved upon me as a duty.'''' ^'' Whence
came this outside pressure and what were the consid
erations which determined with which wing of the
party he would cooperate?
279 The italics are raine. This declaration was made by Mr. Douglas
in the course of a speech at the Illinois State Agricultural Fair on the
third of October, 1854, five months after the passage of the Kansas-
Nebraska bill. The speech is reported in the Missouri Republican, Octo
ber 6, 1854. Mr. Lincoln was present, and the next day replied to Mr.
Douglas In a four-hour speech. There is also a brief account of these
speeches in the Weekly Democratic Press (Chicago), October 14, 1854.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 20I
Some time after the Repeal, ^^° Senator Atchison
claimed that he came to Washington with pledges
to the people of Missouri hardly cold upon his lips
to support a Nebraska territorial bill on condition
that it should repeal the Missouri Compromise. He
therefore desired to be chairman of the Committee
on Territories when the Nebraska bill was to be in
troduced, with the object, one may fairly assume, of
obtaining full credit in Missouri for his efforts in
this direction. With this purpose in mind, Mr.
Atchison claimed to have had an interview with
Senator Douglas at which he informed Mr. Douglas
of what he desired, the introduction of a bill for
Nebraska like the one he had promised to vote for,
and that he would like to be chairman of the Com
mittee on Territories in order to introduce such a
measure. If he could get that position, he would
immediately resign as President pro tempore of the
Senate. Mr. Douglas, according to Atchison's story,
requested time to consider the matter, saying that if,
at the expiration of a given time, he could not intro
duce such a bill as Senator Atchison proposed and
which would at the same time accord with his own
sense of right and justice to the South, he would
resign as chairman of the Committee in Democratic
caucus, and exert his influence to get Atchison ap
pointed. No good reason exists for rejecting the fore
going claim of Senator Atchison. There is nothing
280 Sept. 20, 1854, in a speech at Atchison in Kansas Territory. Ap
pendix E contains two accounts of this speech and a discussion of Douglas's
denial of its correctness.

202 THE REPEAL OF
in it which is improbable, or unreasonable. On the
contrary it was most natural in view of Senator Atch
ison's obvious interest in the subject. If, to his per
sonal interest, the further fact be added that Atchison
and Douglas were close friends, ^^^ that Douglas en
tertained a strong dislike of Benton, ^*^ that within
the two years preceding Douglas on more than one
occasion had gone over into Missouri to aid the Atch
ison faction against Benton, ^" the probability of
Atchison seeking the cooperation of Mr. Douglas at
this critical moment becomes almost a certainty.
Assuming that Atchison sought to influence Sen
ator Douglas, it is easy to see how powerful an appeal
he could make for the incorporation into Dodge's Ne
braska bill, when in Douglas's committee, of a clause
which in effect should repeal the Compromise re
striction. It is fair to argue that Senator Atchison's
political necessity might have been so presented as to
appear as Douglas's great political opportunity. In
the first place, by championing the Repeal Mr. Doug-
281 See Washington correspondent of the Missouri Republican quoted
on pages 320, 221.
282 Ibid.
283 The following which occurs in the course of a long letter of F. P.
Blair, Jr., to the Missouri Democrat, dated March i, 1856, inferentially at
least supports the idea of a friendship existing between Atchison and
Douglas, or at least the existence of a feeling of hostility between Douglas
and Colonel Benton:
"Mr. Douglas especially has taken the trouble, on several occasions
within the last two years, to visit the State of Missouri, to give aid and
comfort to the 'Nullifiers and Rottens,' the 'Shinplaster Democracy,' who
have been warring on Old Bullion here since the advent of Tyler. They
deserve to be betrayed who harbored and cherished this restless intriguer
whilst he was assailing the most illustrious of living Democrats  "
See Rev. Pol. Action, 76.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 203
las would be assisting a political and personal friend
in dire straits. Furthermore, he would be placing
the radical wing of the Southern Democracy under
obligation to himself, and thus would very mate
rially increase his chances of obtaining the pres
idential nomination in 1856. The principle of
popular sovereignty would afford ground upon
which the* rank and file of the factions in Mis
souri might unite in harmony, since each faction had
but recently declared in favor of that method of de
ciding the "vexed" question ; and this would enhance
the popularity of the measure in other portions of
the West. Ready at hand was a plausible justifica
tion for attaching the repeal feature to the Nebraska
bill; Democratic newspapers had already interpreted
the Compromise of 1850 as applicable to Nebraska.
Loyalty to that Compromise as thus interpreted could
be made a test of political orthodoxy in New York
where the party was suffering from serious internal
dissensions. Moreover, to this basis for the Repeal
objections from either of the two national parties
would be forestalled by the doctrine of super
sedure, for both parties stood committed to the final
ity of the Compromise of 1850. If, in addition to
this, it be conceded that Mr. Douglas was a sincere
believer in the dogma of popular sovereignty, it re
quires no abnormal imagination to conceive how
effectively a personal and political friend could have
appealed to Mr. Douglas to assume official responsi
bility for the Repeal. In a word, it might have been
presented as a turning point in Senator Douglas's
political career. One path seemed to lead to the

204 THE REPEAL OF
highest political reward, the realization of his pres
idential aspirations. The other seemed to involve
resignation from the chairmanship of the Committee
on Territories, in those years perhaps the most prom
inent, perhaps the most important. Committee in
the Senate, with a consequent loss of prestige in both
the West and the South. Even to a less "practical"
politician than Mr. Douglas the appeal might well
prove irresistible. That Senator Douglas should
have hesitated and weighed the consequences was
most natural, for clearly the situation marked a crisis
of which he must have been fully conscious. ^^^
Senator Atchison did not arrive in Washington
until late in November, ^^^ and whatever conversa
tion upon this subject he may have had with Mr.
Douglas doubtless occurred in December and prob
ably during the three weeks ^^^ after the Walker and
Lanphier letter and while the Dodge bill was in
the hands of Douglas's committee. Toward the
end of that period it began to leak out that some
thing unusual was under consideration. The Cor
respondent of the Baltimore Sun wrote :^^^
". . . . The Senate Committee on Territories has it [the
Nebraska bill] under consideration and will probably report in
284 If proof of this were needed, there is the well-known letter of
Senator Archibald Dixon of Kentucky to Henry S. Foote, which, stripped
of its melodramatic garb, certainly indicates hesitation and consciousness
of a crisis on the part of Mr. Douglas. This letter is given in Flint's
Life of Douglas, 138 ff; Mrs. Dixon's True History of ihe Missouri Com
promise, 445-448.
285 Atchison's letter to the editor of the Missouri Examiner, in the
Washington Union, Dec. 23, 1853.
285 From Dec. 14, 1853, to January 4, 1854.
287 Quoted in the Cincinnati Inquirer, Jan. 3, 1854.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 205
favor of the organization of more than one territorial government.
A plan has been proposed also to avoid the opposition to the bill
which has been threatened by Mr. Atchison in his addresses to the
people of Missouri. Some means will be adopted for the pre
vention of the threatened revival of the slavery question in this
bill." About the same time the Correspondent of the
Charleston Courier had evidently been admitted to
inside information, for he wrote to his paper: ^^^
"The speeches of Senator Atchison in Missouri pledge him
and his constituents mutually to -raise a storm here against the
slavery restriction when the subject of Nebraska Territory shall
come up. That the question is certain to come off I have
heard from all quarters. I have conversed with some members
of the Senate committee on territories, however, and they think
they will be able to give the bill a form which will suit all parties
in relation to the admission of slaves. They will put the project
on the basis of the Compromise of 1850, as applicable to the Ter
ritories of New Mexico and Utah  "
By the fourth of January, Senator Douglas seems
to have reached a decision. On that day he reported
back to the Senate the Nebraska bill introduced
by Senator Dodge. It had made no reference to the
subject of slavery; but it now carried important
amendments relating to that subject and was accom
panied by a special report of an unusual nature. ^^'
The amendments constituted a new section :
"Section 21. And be it further enacted. 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 prop-

288 Writing Dec. 28, 1853, in issue of Jan. 2, 1854. The italics are mine.
See also Washington correspondent of the N. Y. Journal of Commerce, in
issue of Dec. 27, 1853, and Rhodes's Hist, of U. S., i, 431 n.
289 Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt. i, 222.

206 THE REPEAL OF
ositions and principles established by the compromise measures of
1850, to-wit:
"First : That all questions pertaining to slavery in the Terri
tories and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left
to the decision of the people residing therein, through their appro
priate representatives.
"Second: That 'all cases involving title to slaves,' and 'ques
tions 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."
In the report which accompanied the bill, ^'°
and of which Mr. Douglas was probably the author,
the Committee took occasion to commend to the Sen
ate the principal amendments to the Dodge bill upon
the ground that by those amendments
"The principles established by the compromise measures of
1850, so far as they are applicable to territorial organizations, are
proposed to be affirmed and carried into practical operation within
the limits of the new Territory."
The Committee then went on to state what they
regarded as having been the object and intent of the
Compromise measures of 1850:
"In the judgment of your Committee, those measures were in
tended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than
the mere adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the recent
acquisitions of Mexican territory. They were designed to estab
lish certain great principles, which would not only furnish adequate
remedies for existing evils, but, in all time to come, avoid the
perils of a similar agitation, by withdrawing the question of slavery
from the halls of Congress and the political arena, and committing

^^'^ Senate Reports, ist Sess., 33d Cong., i. No. 15.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 207
it to the arbitrament of those who were immediately interested in,
and alone responsible for its consequences."
With a view to making their action conform to
what they regarded as the settled policy of the Gov
ernment, "sanctioned by the approving voice of the
American people," the Committee
"deemed it their duty to incorporate and perpetuate, in their
territorial bill, the principles and the spirit of ... . [the com
promise] measures."
The discussion of the bill then went over until
the twenty-third of January. In the meantime, how
ever. Senator Archibald Dixon of Kentucky, a Whig
who was serving out the unexpired term of Henry
Clay, gave notice that when the bill should come up
for consideration he would offer an amendment, ^'^
in the form of an added section, providing that the
Missouri Compromise restriction upon slavery
"shall not be so construed as to apply to the Territory con
templated by this act, or to any other Territory of the United
States; but that the citizens of the several States and Territories
shall 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 . . [prohibition] had never been passed."
In Other words, Senator Dixon, although a Whig,
proposed to apply to this new Nebraska Territory
the simon-pure Calhoun doctrine, which Senator
Atchison had been supporting in Missouri.
On the twenty-third of January, Mr. Douglas
called up the Nebraska bill, and for the Committee
on Territories, reported a substitute bill for the one
reported on January 4. This new bill divided the
territory described in the earlier bill and provided

291

Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt. i, 175.

2o8 THE REPEAL OF
for the organization of the two Territories, Kansas
and Nebraska.^'^ The bill, henceforth known as the
292 Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt. i, 221. The following story of the way in
which the organization of two Territories came about is told by Hadley D.
Johnson. Incidentally it indicates that Mr. Douglas was quite susceptible
to outside influences.
"Before starting [for Washington] .... a nuraber of our citizens
who took such a deep interest in the organization of a Territory west of
Iowa, had on due thought and consultation agreed upon a plan which I
had formed, which was the organization of two Territories west of the
Missouri river, instead of one as had heretofore been contemplated, and I
had traced on a map hanging in the office of Johnson & Cassidy a line
which I hoped would be the southern boundary of Nebraska, which It did
finally becorae, and so continues to the present time  Hon. A. C.
Dodge, Senator frora Iowa, who had from the first been an ardent friend
and advocate of my plan, introduced me to Judge Douglas, to whom I
unfolded my plan, and asked him to adopt it, which after mature considera
tion, he decided to do, and he agreed that, as Chairraan of the Committee
on Territories, he would report a substitute for the pending bill, which
afterwards he did do, and this substitute became the celebrated 'Nebraska
Bill,' and provided, as you know, for the organization of the Territories of
Kansas and Nebraska  " Compare with Senator Dodge's reraarks,
quoted in note 251.
"In our negotiations as to the dividing line a good deal of trouble
was encountered, Mr. [Thoraas] Johnson and his Missouri friends being
very anxious that the Platte river should constitute the line, which obviously
would not suit the people of Iowa, especially as I believed it was a plan
of the American Fur Corapany to colonize the Indians north of the Platte
river. As this plan did not raeet with the approbation of ray friends
or myself, I firmly resolved that this line should not be adopted. Judge
Douglas was kind enough to leave that question to me, and I offered
to Mr. Johnson the choice of two lines, first, the present line, or second,
an imaginary line traversing that divide between the Platte and the Kaw.
"After considerable parleying, and Mr. Johnson not being willing to
accept either line, I finally offered the two alternatives — the fortieth degree
of north latitude, or the defeat of the whole bill, for that session at least.
After consulting with his friends, I presume, Mr. Johnson very reluctantly
consented to the fortieth degree as the dividing line between the two Terri
tories, whereupon Judge Douglas prepared and Introduced the substitute.
. . . ." — Nebr. State Hist. Soc. Trans, and Reports, ii, 80. See Douglas's
explanation of the division given In his speech of Jan. 23, 1854, Cong.
Globe, xxviii, Pt. i, 221.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 209
Kansas-Nebraska bill,^'^ contained the following
section :
"Section 14  The Constitution, and all laws of the
United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the
same force and effect within the said Territories as elsewhere in
the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory
to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6,
1820, which was superseded by the principles of the legislation of
1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and is declared
inoperative." Historians have been somewhat puzzled by the
fourth of January report, by the Dixon amendment,
and by the substitution of a bill creating two Ter
ritories and expressly repealing the Missouri Com
promise. If we take into consideration the difficult prob
lem confronting Senator Douglas after the opening
of Congress, his natural hesitation before committing
himself to the solution which the interests of Senator
Atchison demanded, and the desire of the Iowa Dele
gate, Hadley D. Johnson, for two Territories, the
puzzle becomes simplified.
It is not unfair to regard the fourth of January
bill and report as in the nature of an experiment.
Mr. Douglas has now decided to pursue the coursfe
desired by the Senator from Missouri. Just which
consideration was decisive, it is impossible to say.
But having reached a decision Mr. Douglas may well
have been troubled with serious doubts as to the best
method of formulating the legislation necessary to
effect the Repeal. He would naturally take the

293 For a brief history of the change in title from "Nebraska-Kansas"
bill to the "Kansas-Nebraska" bill, see Kan. Hist. Soc. Trans., ix, 117 n.

210 THE REPEAL OF
greatest pains to choose language as mild, as plausi
ble as possible, and not likely to provoke the hostility
of the anti-slavery wing of his party. The Re
peal must be disguised under the most carefully se
lected phraseology in order to avoid, if possible, a
renewal of the slavery agitation. The bill must be
made acceptable to all parties; and so he attempts a
compromise. Hence the extraordinary pains be
trayed in this extraordinary report to gloss over the
real significance of what was being done ; hence the
mild and circumlocutory phraseology. Mr. Doug
las is feeling his way, endeavoring to ward off agita
tion. The bill and report of January 4 constitute a
vain attempt to accomplish the Repeal by a sort of
compromise measure based upon an analogy be
tween the divergent views in 1850 regarding the
status of slavery under Mexican law in the territory
acquired from Mexico, and the divergent views in
1854 regarding the validity of the Missouri Compro
mise prohibition of slavery in the territory acquired
from France.
His efforts were in vain. The anti-slavery lead
ers at once took alarm.^''* The pro-slavery leaders
were dissatisfied at the ambiguous language. And so
Senator Dixon, another friend of Senator Atchi
son, gave notice of his amendment repealing the
Missouri Compromise in the most explicit terms. ^"
29+ Hence the "Appeal of the Independent Democrats in Congress,"
Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt. i, 281.
295 "On examining that bill [Nebraska bill of January 4] it struck me
that it was deficient in one material respect; it did not in terms repeal the
restrictive prohibition in regard to slavery embodied in the Missouri Com
promise. This, to rae, was a deficiency that I thought it imperiously neces
sary to supply:" — Dixon to Foote, in Flint's Life of Douglas, 139.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 211
There is no evidence upon the point, but it is
not unreasonable to suppose that Mr. Atchison or
his friends may, for the purpose of influencing
Mr. Douglas, have instigated this action by Senator
Dixon, who, although a Whig, when it came to slav
ery, "knew no Whiggery and knew no Democ
racy." ^'^ It would be shrewd politics to startle Sen
ator Douglas, to make him apprehensive that his
political thunder was to be stolen, and by a Whig!
If therefore he wished to turn the Repeal to his own
political profit there must be no ambiguous hedging,
no measure the legal effect of which could be open
to question. At any rate, there is evidence that Sen
ator Douglas was disconcerted by Senator Dixon's
manoeuvre. '^^'' This convinced him that the radicals
were determined to push the Repeal whether with
or without his help, and that if he was to make politi
cal capital out of it, the time had arrived, at least so
far as the language of the bill was concerned, to come
out boldly, unreservedly and unequivocally in sup
port of the Repeal. So within a week after Senator
Dixon's notice Mr. Douglas reported the substitute,
or Kansas-Nebraska bill, of January 23, repealing the
Missouri Compromise in terms clear and unmistak
able, and so satisfactory to the radical Senator Dixon
that he withdrew his amendment. ^'* By the twenty-
296 Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt. i, 240.
297 "My amendment seemed to take the Senate by surprise, and no
one appeared more startled than Judge Douglas himself." — Dixon to Foote.
298 "The Senator from Kentucky, on the sixteenth of January, subraitted
an amendment which came square up to the repeal  That amendment
probably produced some fluttering and some consultations. It met the
views of Southern Senators, and probably deterrained the shape which the

212 THE REPEAL OF
third of January, therefore, the Rubicon is crossed:
henceforth there must be no retreating, no equivocat
ing, if Mr. Douglas expected to gain anything. That
he met the Whirlwind of wrath which ensued as suc
cessfully as he did is perhaps the best commentary
upon his courage and cleverness as a politician and
his ability as a debater and popular orator.
But before committing himself finally and ir
revocably to the Repeal, Mr. Douglas and those more
personally interested in the success of the measure
realized the essential importance of securing the sup
port of the Administration. In the week between
the Dixon amendment and the twenty-third of Jan
uary, this support was secured. The account of the
way in which it was brought about as told by the Cor
respondent of the New York Herald ^^' is not only
interesting but significant for the prominence which
it gives to Senator Atchison in accomplishing the
desired result; also, as will appear later, for the prom
inence given to the names of Senators Hunter and
Mason of Virginia.
" . . . . The Cabinet was in session all day yesterday and to
a late hour in the evening discussing the merits of the Nebraska
bill and the amendment proposed by Senator Dixon 
The result of the Cabinet deliberations yesterday has been an
bill has finally assumed. Of the various mutations which it has under
gone, I can hardly be mistaken in attributing the last [Jan. 23] to the
amendment of the Senator from Kentucky. . . .1 know of no cause
which will account for the remarkable changes which the bill underwent
after the sixteenth of January, other than that amendment, and the deter
mination of Southem Senators to support it, and to vote against any pro
vision recognizing the right of any territorial legislature to prohibit the
introduction of slavery.'' — Chase in Senate, Feb. 3, 1854. Cong. Globe,
xxix, 135.
299 Writing Jan. 22, in issue of Jan. 23, 1854.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 213
agreement to have an amendment offered in the Senate by way of
compromise adding to the 21st section of the Nebraska bill a
proviso to the effect that the rights of persons and property shall
be subject only to the restrictions and limitations imposed by the
Constitution of the United States and the acts giving govern
ments, to be adjusted by a decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States  "
Writing on the twenty-third of January, ^°° the
day on which the Kansas-Nebraska bill was substi
tuted, the same Correspondent said:
"The past twenty-four hours have witnessed a complete
somersault of the President and Cabinet on the Nebraska matter.
In order to understand the whole matter we must give a brief
narrative. The amendment which was sent you yesterday was
submitted by Mr. Breckenridge of Kentucky and Mr. Phillips
of Alabama to Judge Douglas, who, it was understood, was pre
pared with an amendment declaring the Missouri Compromise
inoperative. The same amendment he offered to-day. Mr. Doug
las stated that he bad no particular objections to the Cabinet
amendment, if the South would consent to accept it; for he con
sidered his bill as originally reported in fact amounting to an
abrogation of the Missouri Compromise. The gentlemen then
called upon several leading men, Messrs. Atchison, Mason, Hunt
er, [the italics are mine] and others, and discovered that the
Cabinet amendment would not go down at all. This fact having
been communicated to the President, he begged his friends to
get the leading members together for consultation yesterday (Sun
day). The result of this consultation was an agreement that the
amendment presented to-day by Judge Douglas should be agreed
upon and the South would resist any other amendment upon the
bill. [Here the amendment is quoted.] .... It will be
seen that it does not use the word 'repeal' .... but substitutes
the words 'supersedes' and 'inoperative.' This is done to avoid
the opposition of the ultra Southern men who contend that the
Missouri law is unconstitutional and who would therefore refuse

300 In issue of Jan. 24, 1854.

214 THE REPEAL OF
to 'repeal' an unconstitutional enactment, a mere quibble of course
as to words.
"Mr. Atchison, Hunter, Mason, Douglas, Bright, Brecken
ridge, Phillips, and perhaps some others, accordingly repaired
yesterday afternoon to the White House to see the President,
and tell him the result of their deliberations. The President,
however, having probably heard of his supreme court amendment,
told the gentlemen that he had 'religious scruples about discussing
the subject on Sunday.' The gentlemen did not appreciate the
difference between the propriety of the President directing them
to discuss the matter, Sunday though it was, and his joining in
the discussion himself, then stated through Mr. Atchison, that if
the President declined to discuss the proposition, they would take
it for granted that he favored it and would regard the amend
ment abrogating the Missouri Compromise as an Administration
measure. Upon this the President spoke and after sundry gyra
tions, agreed that the bill should be reported, and said the Ad
ministration would then take ground. The gentlemen left with
the understanding that the Administration would take ground in
its favor." On the second of April the Correspondent of
the Missouri Republican wrote: ^°^
". . . . The assent and support of Gen. Pierce had been
obtained before the bill was introduced and when it was after
wards thought necessary to change its phraseology. Pierce was
again consulted and drew the amendment by which the Missouri
act was to be 'superseded.' It was thought advisable by Douglas
and Atchison to induce the President to commit himself in this
manner in order to avoid risk of his withdrawing his countenance
after the battle should be joined. They therefore insisted upon
this course, and Pierce with great good nature complied. With
the famous clause repealing the Missouri Compromise in his own

301 In issue of April lo, 1854. See also the Boston Atlas editorial.
May 16, 1854; letter of Salmon P. Chase to E. S. Hamlin, Jan. 23, 1854,
in "Chase Correspondence,'' in Am. Hist. Assn. Report, 1902, ii, 256 ; Wil
son's Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, ii, 382-383 ; New York Evening
Post, Oct. 20, 1855, quoted in Kan. Hist. Soc. Trans., ix, 120 n.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 21 5
hand-writing Gen. Pierce cannot recant his promise nor refuse the
assistance of his Democratic bodyguard in the House to support
and carry it where that sort of strength was most required and
where he alone could command it."
Outside the Senate Chamber Senator Atchison
was evidently playing an active and important part
in bringing about the Repeal ; and this illustrates the
importance of looking beyond the pages of the Con
gressional Globe to discover the real history of the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise. From the
Globe it might be inferred that Senator Atchison had
little to do with the Repeal, since he took almost no
part in the debate upon the Kansas-Nebraska bill.
The Globe indicates that he made only two very brief
speeches ^°^ and that these speeches were not directed
to the principal topic of debate but to the Clayton
amendment whereby aliens were to be excluded from
political privileges in the new Territories. ^" His
302 March 2, and May 24 ; Cong. Globe, xxix, 301 ; ibid., xxviii,
Pt. ii, 1303.
303 The correspondent of the Missouri Republican writing March 6,
1854, in issue of March 14, stated that Atchison had inspired the Clayton
amendment, and then went on to say: "Atchison's object was this: Benton
will be compelled to vote for the bill as an alternative to political martyr-
dora. Benton's chief strength is with the German Democrats of St. Louis
and vicinity. Mr. Atchison not only does not like these Red Republicans, but
cordially hates them and the sentiment on their part is cordially reciprocated.
He is willing therefore to give them a proof of his affection under the fifth
rib ; but would not go out of his way to do it but that he thinks that through
their ribs he can reach the vitals of Old Bullion. Now by the amendment
adopted the newly arrived brethren of these Germans will be kept out of
Nebraska or they will be excluded frora interfering with the native citizens
on the slavery question. Benton raust take or reject the bill with this
feature. If he adopts it, the Gerraans cut him; if he votes against the
bill, Missouri repudiates him. Upon the whole it would seem that Atch
ison has got him."
Atrhison voted for this amendment but did not instigate Clayton to

2l6 THE REPEAL OF
silence however is not at all inconsistent with the idea
that he exerted a powerful influence in shaping this
piece of legislation. ^°'^ It may in part be explained
by the fact that as President ^ro tempore of the Senate
after the death of Vice-President King, Mr. Atchison
as presiding officer could hardly be expected to, and
as a matter of fact did not, participate in debate as

introduce it. When the bill came back to the Senate for concurrence in the
House amendments, among which was the omission of the Clayton amend
ment. Senator Atchison explained briefly why he was willing to concur:
"There is no constitutional question in my opinion involved either by
voting for or against this amendment. It is a mere question of policy;
and that question of policy I am willing to yield for the sake of a higher
principle contained in this bill. Sir, I would vote for ihis bill, although
there might be not only one but one thousand obnoxious principles con
tained in it. I would vote for it because it blois out thai infamous, yes, sir,
I think it is a proper term to be used; ihat infamous restriction passed
by the Congress of 1820, commonly called the Missouri Compromise, passed
when the State which I now have in part the honor to represent, asked
admission into the Union of these States  Yes, sir, if this bill
contained one thousand obnoxious principles, with the repeal of that in
famous 'compromise,' as it is called, I should vote for it. When this is
done, we shall have achieved what, after thirty years of struggle, has
only been consummated at this session.
"As I said before, I believe that, as a matter of policy, none but
American citizens, native-born, or naturalized, should be entitled to vote
or to hold office in this country; but still I am willing to yield this;
and as a Southem raan, as representing a State more deeply interested in
the passage of ihis bill, perhaps, than any other State in ihe Union, I say
that, practically, it will have no effect upon the institutions of these
territories  " — Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt. ii, 1303. The italics are
mine. 304 In the recent debates upon the railway rate bill. Senator Aldrich
of Rhode Island took no conspicuous part; but no one will venture to say
that he did not exert a very important influence in shaping that piece of
legislation. Vice-President King died April 18, 1853, before he had taken the
oath of office; Senator Atchison was thereupon elected President pro
tempore at the opening of the 33d Congress. Pearce of Maryland and
Atchison were the only Senators in this Congress who had been in the
Senate for ten consecutive years. — National Intelligencer, Dec. 24, 1853.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 217
actively as many other Senators. Furthermore it is
not always the talkers, the debaters of the House or
Senate who are the most influential members of Con
gress. Atchison and Benton, for example, were rep
resentatives of two types of men to be found in
every deliberative body. The former preferred
the less conspicuous but not less potent and more
difficult role of influencing legislation through per
sonal appeals. Benton chose the more conspicuous
stage of the speech-maker. As Senator Atchison,
with Eenton in mind, truly said: "stormy speeches
and bills full of attractive promises the people can
be made to know all about; but the unknown labor
in committee and in Congress necessary to command
success by making measures understood, the people
.... cannot be made fully to appreciate."
On the sixth of February, the bill then being
under consideration in the Senate, Mr. Douglas
moved to amend the substitute bill reported on the
twenty-third of January, by striking out from Sec
tion 14 the words, "which was superseded by," and
inserting in their place the words, "which is incon
sistent with." The clause will then provide, said
Mr. Douglas,
"that the Constitution and laws not locally inapplicable shall
have the same force in the Territorj' as elsewhere, except the
eighth section of the ^lissouri act, 'which is inconsistent with the
principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compro
mise measures, and is hereby declared inoperative.' This is the
express idea convej'ed in the original words, but I prefer to make
it plainer." 30S

303

Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt. i, 343.

21 8 THE REPEAL OF
Considerable discussion followed as to the rel
ative merits of the two phrases, "superseded by" and
"inconsistent with," in which Senators Cass and
Stuart of Michigan, Badger of North Carolina, and
Walker of Wisconsin, participated. ^°^ The matter
then went over until the next morning. In the mean
time Senator Douglas had an opportunity to take
counsel with the friends of the bill, and when the
Senate reconvened the next day Mr. Douglas had
perfected his amendment. He rose and stated that
he had drawn an amendment which he believed
would meet the approbation of the friends of the bill.
He therefore moved to amend the fourteenth section
by striking out the words,
". . . . which [the Missouri Compromise act] was
superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly
called the compromise measures, and is hereby declared inop
erative," and inserting the words,
"which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-inter
vention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as
recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the com
promise 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 Con
stitution of the United States."
"I move that amendment with the general con
currence of the friends of the measure," said Mr.
Douglas: "it will apply to both Territories." The
306 Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt. i, 353 fit.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 219
amendment was adopted on the fifteenth of Febru-

arN%^^^

With this vote it was in fact determined ^°^ diat
the Missouri Compromise should be repealed as Sen
ator Atchison had suggested. But so far as the offi
cial record shows, Stephen A. Douglas and not Mr.
Atchison was the author of the Repeal.

31^" FeK 7, 1X54; Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt. i, 353. The italics are mine.
Of the thirty-five Senators who voted for the amendment, twenty-three
were Democrats and twelve were Whigs; twelve were Northern or Free
State Democrats, and one a Free State Whig. Of the ten who voted
against the amendment, all but one, Houston of Texas, were from Free
States: five were Whics. three were Democrats, and two, Freesoilers.
Ibid., 421. Scn^ilc Journal, ist Sess.. 33d Cong., 1S8.
30S Although the bill underwent amendment in other respects during
the long debates in the Senate and the House, this important section re
mained unaltered.

CHAPTER VIII
The Congressional Aspects of the Missouri Contest (continued)
-How the Kansas-Nebraska Bill with the Repeal Affected
Colonel Benton-Senator Atchison's Letter Reviewing the Cam
paign—Colonel John A. Parker's "Secret History of the Kansas-
Nebraska Biir'-Testimony of Francis P. Blair, Jr.-Senator
Atchison, the Real Author of the Repeal.
It is not difficult now to perceive the intimate
relation which the amended Dodge bill of January 4
sustained to the desires of Senator Atchison and to the
Missouri senatorial contest. The Correspondent of
the New York Journal of Commerce wrote the next
day:^"^ "The Nebraska bill reported by Senator Douglas is destined
to create renewed excitement as to the slavery question, but its
provisions have been well considered, and I am glad to say, meet
with general approbation. It is said that Mr. Atchison and Mr.
Everett will support the bill, and the friends of the Compromise
of 1850 are called upon to maintain it and thus carry out the
principles of that pacification  The Administration ap
proves of the measure, but was not consulted in regard to it be
fore the Senate Committee on Territories had agreed upon it.
.... If this bill should pass it will settle the question as to the
future Territories."
The Correspondent of the Baltimore Sun, writ
ing on the same day, said : ^"
309 Writing Jan. 5, in issue of Jan. 6, 1854. The italics are mine.
See also Washington correspondent of the New York Herald, in issue of
Jan. 2, 1854.
310 In issue of Jan. 6, 1854. The italics are mine.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 221
"Senator Douglas is entitled to the thanks of the country for
the discreet manner in which he has solved the embarrassing
questions attending the organization of the Territory of Nebraska.
If my information is correct the bill is assented to by Mr. Atchison
who was pledged before the people of Missouri to resign his seat
rather than agree to the establishment of the Territory with the
slavery restriction. Ion."
Clear as it seems in the minds of these Corres
pondents that the bill of January 4 had a bearing
upon the Missouri political situation and the wishes
of Senator Atchison, that fact appears still more con
clusively in the important communication of the Cor
respondent of the Missouri Republican written two
days after the report:^"
"The Nebraska bill from the Senate committee continues to
excite a profound sensation. It repeals the Missouri Compromise
as to the prohibition of slavery north of latitude 36° 30' by
applying one of the clauses of the Compromise acts of 1850. This
will occasion a furious debate and .... will perhaps render
the session of 1853-54 as celebrated in the history of the dissension
upon slavery as that which was distinguished by the pacification
of 1850  The bill will of course pass the Senate. In the
House it will encounter a very formidable opposition. However,
on surveying the condition of things, seeing that the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise, placed by its advocates upon the adherence
to that of 1850, and that the Administration is so rigidly pledged
to resist all projects of the freesoilers or those who sympathize
with freesoilism in even the most remote degree, I cannot doubt
that this bill will pass. It is obviously the plan adopted by the
Atchison party to this dispute, because At£hison and Douglas
are inseparable friends, and because no definite action has yet
been taken in Richardson's committee of the House on the subject.
Richardson is a long tried and ardent personal friend of Douglas
and perhaps hates Benton as either that Senator or Atchison. I
infer from these relations between the parties that it has been

311 Writing Jan. 6, in issue of Jan. 13, 1854. The italics are mine.

222 THE REPEAL OF
arranged to let the whole matter be settled in the Senate and that
Richardson will report no bill, or at least withhold any that may
be formed until the fate of Douglas's bill should be virtually de
cided. It is well known to be the fact that the project of three
Territories, instead of one, was suggested and discussed at Doug
las's house, and. after a good deal of anxious consideration was
given up because certain parties of influence could not be recon
ciled to the ejection of the southern Indians in the country west
of Arkansas." How this "plan adopted by the Atchisonian
party," and embodied in the bill and report of Jan
uary 4, bore upon the old fight over the senatorial
succession in Missouri is easily explained. Benton
had come to Washington at the opening of Congress
the ardent champion before the people of western
Missouri of a territorial government for Nebras
ka, assuming that slavery would be prohibited in
the new Territory. If the Senate should pass the
Nebraska territorial bill repealing the Compromise,
the matter would at once come before the House of
Representatives of which Colonel Benton was then
a member, and he would be compelled to face a
dilemma. If he supported the Nebraska bill with
the repealing clause, he would go counter to his well-
known freesoil opinions and sympathies ; and in con
sequence he would lose the support of the rank and
file of the slavery restrictionists in the ensuing August
elections in Missouri. If, on the other hand, he
should oppose the Nebraska bill with the repeal
clause, he would go counter to 'his recent pledges to
bring about the immediate establishment of a terri
torial government in Nebraska, and consequently
would be certain to lose the support of the populous

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 223
pro-slavery counties in the western part of the State
which were most deeply interested in Nebraska Ter
ritory. Either course involved the loss of an im
portant political following in his fight for restoration
to the Senate, This is brought out in what the Cor
respondent of the Missouri Republican wrote on the
tenth of January: ^'^
"Benton's position .... will be full of difficulty. He has
said so much in favor of the immediate settlement of that region
that he can hardly justify himself before any Missouri constit
uency, if he opposes the bill, and yet it repeals the Missouri Com
promise, the original Wilmot Proviso. Douglas argues that the
Compromise measures are a new constitution adopted by Congress
for the people and therefore override all former compromises.
How can Mr. Benton escape the dilemma in which Douglas's
argument together with Douglas's bill places him? But most
of his friends, including the freesoilers in the House and Senate
who swear by his coat-tails expect that he will swallow the
argument and bill at a dose. I fully believe that he will vote
for it [a prediction which proved to be incorrect] and all the
rest of the Missouri delegation."
Viewed from the Atchison standpoint, there was
grave danger that the mild, ambiguous phraseology
of the fourth of January might fail to accomplish
Atchison's purpose to place Colonel Benton upon the
horns of such a dilemma as would be certain to kill
him politically in Missouri. Senator Dixon and
doubtless others felt that "the bill did not in terms
repeal the restrictive prohibition in regard to slavery
embodied in the Missouri Compromise." There was
the possibility, in other words, that a politician so
resourceful as Benton might support the bill and
find a loophole by which to escape from the trap
312 In issue of Jan. 18, 1854.

224 THE REPEAL OF
set by his enemies. At least the Editor of the Mis
souri Republican appeared to hold this opinion; for
later, this paper stated that "Benton has been playing
a two-faced game at Washington. It is admitted at
one time that he was in favor of Douglas's Nebraska
bill. Hale so undersood him and Beecher lamented
the weakening which induced him to take this
course." ^'^
The language of the repealing clause must there
fore be stiffened, stripped of any ambiguity, if it
were to accomplish Senator Atchison's purpose. Ac
cordingly the substitute bill of the twenty-third de
clared in clear and explicit terms the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise. There was now no escape
for Benton. " . . . . Seeing the Whig delegation from Missouri united
in favor of the Nebraska bill and that the Democratic delegation
will also vote for it, knowing that he has no longer any chance
of a return to the Senate from Missouri he has determined upon
playing for a higher stake. He will vote against the Nebraska bill,
and speak against it, and for giving up all hope of the senatorial
office in Missouri he expects to be rewarded with the freesoil and
abolition nomination for President in 1856  The poison
which Gardiner administered to himself only a few squares from
the capitol where Benton is to make this speech and give his vote
against the Nebraska bill, was no more suddenly fatal to his
life and reputation, than will be this speech and vote of Benton
upon his senatorial prospects in Missouri. All that his worst
enemy could ask is that he may so speak and vote." 31"*
"Vote against the Nebraska bill and speak
against it" ^" Colonel Benton did, thus doing "all
313 March 14, 1854.
314 Editorial in the Missouri Republican, March 14, 1854.
315 April 25, 1854. Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt. ii, 986; ibid., xxbc, 557.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 225
that his worst enemy could ask." The day after his
speech in the House against the bill, the Corres
pondent of the Missouri Republican wrote: ^'^
". . . . Yesterday and today may be considered 'field days'
in the great war which has broken out betwepn the Administra
tion and Col. Benton. Old Benton opened yesterday from all
his batteries using red-hot balls as well as bombs, grape and can
ister. His guns were as large as that which burst on the Prince
ton. Today the government organ, the Union, replied from
Paixhans of the largest class, loaded to the muzzle. The air was
filled with the noise and smoke of the infuriated combatants.
.... It would have done you good to have seen the happy
faces of John P. Hale, and old man Giddings, Mr. Chase, Sum
ner, Truman Smith, Washburn of Maine, and troops of that
class of men literally surrounding him and cheering him on,
laughing when he smiled, scowling when he frowned 
All eyes are turned upon the State of Missouri. Will the Dem
ocrats of that State or any considerable number of them desert
the Democratic party and the Administration by following Benton
in this wild freak? is the universal inquiry. The general opinion
here is that they will not, but that Col. Benton will withdraw
from the contest for the senatorship and rely upon the power of
the abolitionists and freesoilers at St. Louis to reelect him to the
House. The Administration believes that his conduct will be
repudiated by its friends in St. Louis, as well as by those of the
State now that he has thrown off the mask and openly assumed
his position with the freesoilers."
Colonel Benton, however, did not retire from
the senatorial contest. But the result of the August
legislative elections was such that when the Legis
lature convened in joint session for the election of a
successor to Senator Atchison forty-one unsuccessful
ballots were taken; and the Legislature finally ad
journed without having elected any one. During the
316 Writing April 26, in issue of May 4, 1854. The italics are mine.

226 THE REPEAL OF
greater part of the balloting Colonel Benton stood
lowest of the three leading candidates. ^^^ This was
his last great political battle. His contest for the
Governorship in 1856 was a forlorn hope, and shortly
after this contest he died. ^^*
If further evidence were needed to establish the
conclusion that the repeal of the Missouri Compro
mise in connection with the Kansas-Nebraska bill
was the culmination of the bitter struggle between
Colonel Benton and Senator Atchison it may be
found in a long letter written by Mr. Atchison almost
immediately after the passage of the Kansas-Ne
braska bill. ^^' The letter was addressed to the peo-

317 During the greater part of the balloting Atchison received 56,
Doniphan (Whig) 59, and Benton 40. — Switzler's Missouri, 277.
318 The XlXth General Assembly met on the twenty-ninth of Decem
ber, 1856, and on the twelfth of January, 1857, elected James S. Green of
St. Louis for the short term to succeed Atchison; and Trusten Polk, the
Governor-elect, was chosen Senator for the long term ending March 4,
1863. — Switzler's Missouri, 283.
319 Dated, Washington, June 5, 1854; printed in the Missouri Repub
lican, June 21, 1854. Portions of this letter which bear directly upon the
Nebraska question and the Repeal will be found In Appendix C, with the
omission of those parts dealing with the Pacific railroad issue.
A few days after the Kansas-Nebraska bill had passed Congress, the
partisans of Atchison residing in his home county gave public expression
to their "unmingled pleasure" at the result. The following resolutions
were "enthusiastically adopted by the meeting" of the people of Platte
County "irrespective of party" held at Weston on the ninth of June, 1854:
"Resolved, That we hail with unmingled pleasure the passing of the
Nebraska-Kansas bill and exult in the fact that an odious restriction has
been removed frora these Territories, and that each and every citizen is
entitled to the same rights of person and property in said Territories that
they would be entitled to in any of the States of the United States.
"Resolved, That our thanks are due to all those who so nobly sup
ported the bill; but our especial thanks are due to our fellow-citizen,
Hon. David R. Atchison for his energy and untiring zeal in the establish
ment of the principle that man is capable of self-government, and that

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 22/
pie of Missouri and was designed for publication as
a campaign document. It reviews at great length
the subjects of the establishment of a territorial gov
ernment west of Missouri and of the railroad to the
Pacific. Concerning these topics Atchison reviews at
length his own and Colonel Benton's views, utterances
and public acts. The letter not only reveals the esti
mate placed upon Benton's public acts by a large
portion of the people of Missouri and the majority
of the members of Congress, but also something of
the man Atchison.
In this letter Senator Atchison says distinctly that
the Kansas-Nebraska bill was "a western measure
.... designed to add to the power and wealth of
the West." The issue which Colonel Benton had
raised in Missouri over Nebraska, namely, that "the
law of organization should be so framed, and ought
to be so framed, that all of his slaveholding constit
uents would be excluded from the Territories," and
that Congress had the constitutional power to enact
a law so framed and "ought to exercise it," Atchison
accepted: "I accepted that issue," he writes, "and
so did the Democrats of Missouri. The battle has
been fought in Congress over the Douglas bill and
while we recognize him as a master spirit from our own State in pro
curing the passage of the Nebraska-Kansas bill, we freely award to Sen
ator Geyer, and Messrs. Lamb, Phelps, Mills, Caruthers, Oliver and
Lindley the meed of praise for their firmness in maintaining the true prin
ciple of self-government.
"Resolved, That we reprobate the conduct of the only one of our
Representatives [Benton] who was willing to sacrifice not only the interests
of Missouri but also all his earlier principles for the sake of obtaining the
favor of those freesoil abolition fanatics who have distracted Congress
for the past thirty years." — Missouri Republican, June 22, 1854.

228 THE REPEAL OF
the Democracy has won a proud victory 
The lines were thus drawn on the national theater as
they had previously been drawn by Benton in our
State  My position on this subject was well-
known in Washington, and the issue that Benton made
upon it, I never shrank from." Referring to his
pledges at Weston, Parkville, and other places to
work for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise,
Senator Atchison went on to say: "I trust. Fellow-
citizens, that I have redeemed this pledge to the let-
er." And, finally, he emphasized the harmony exist
ing between the resolution of the Missouri Legisla
ture, in 1845, approving the principle of popular
sovereignty for the settlement of the question of
slavery in the Territories; his own preferences on
the subject as expressed publicly by him dur
ing the campaign of 1853; and the method pre
scribed for the settlement of the slavery question
by the Kansas-Nebraska bill. "Thus did Missouri
announce the same great doctrines for which I
contended and on which the Douglas bill was framed
and against which Benton joined issue with me, with
the Legislature, and with the Democracy of Mis
souri, with Congress and with the Administration."
The attempted solution of the problem respect
ing the origin of the repeal of the Missouri Compro
mise might be left at this point with the plain in
ference that the Repeal arose from conditions pecul
iar to the West, were it not for the fact that the ques
tion of secondary importance mentioned in the intro
ductory pages remains undisposed of. To be sure,
the evidence points strongly to David R. Atchison

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 229
as the real originator of the Repeal rather than to
Stephen A. Douglas. But upon this question, the
evidence has been almost wholly circumstantial or
inferential. None has been presented which explic
itly asserts that Senator Atchison was the real author
of the Repeal. Such a claim is not made even in
the letter which has just been summarized. Further
more, Mr. Atchison's subsequent claims to author
ship, have, as has been stated, been seriously im
peached by historians and apparently denied by
Senator Douglas. It remains to be seen if there is
any other direct evidence tending to support Atchi
son's claims.
Only one statement, it would seem, has been pub
lished with the direct and sole purpose of assigning
to a single individual other than Mr. Douglas the
credit or discredit of having originated the Repeal.
In the year 1880 an article appeared in the National
Quarterly Review for July with the caption, "What
Led to the War, or the Secret History of the Kansas-
Nebraska Bill." Later, the article appeared in
pamphlet form. The author was Colonel John A.
Parker of Virginia, a person of high social and polit
ical standing, who, during the pendency of the bill
in Congress, occupied a position giving him peculiar
opportunities to know the inside history of the Kan
sas-Nebraska bill. ^^° It is the emphatic testimony
of Colonel Parker that "the primary object ....
which induced the initiation of the measure to repeal
the Missouri Compromise was to secure the reelec-
320 This pamphlet and the credibility of its author are fully dis
cussed in Appendix D.

230 THE REPEAL OF
tion of Mr. Atchison to the Senate. The means to
be employed was the repeal of the Missouri Compro
mise in order that the people of Missouri might carry
their slaves to Kansas and there raise hemp. The
author of the Kansas-Nebraska bill was not Mr.
Douglas but Mr. Atchison  The originators of
the plan fixed upon were Mr. Atchison and three oth
er able and distinguished Southern Senators, men of
great influence in the whole country, and especially
influential in the South."
Nowhere is it stated in Colonel Parker's article
who the "three other able and distinguished South
ern Senators" were, who cooperated with Mr. Atchi
son in the Repeal. The mystery was cleared up,
however, by the discovery of portions of a speech
and a letter of Hon. Francis P. Blair, Jr., of Mis
souri. The speech was delivered in Missouri in 1854
a short time after the enactment of the Kansas-Ne
braska bill. ^^' The following passage not only cor
roborates Colonel Parker's statement but actually
names the three coworkers with Atchison.
"Mr. Douglas has the credit of having originated this scheme
of breaking compacts, fraught with such fatal tendencies. He
does not deserve this precedence. It will be remembered that
at the last session of Congress, Mr. Atchison broached the idea
of dissolving the Missouri Compromise, in connection with the
then pending Nebraska bill. Mr. Calhoun's Southern unit con
trived to get Mr. Atchison made President pro tem. of the Senate.
From that hour he became the tool of the Nullifiers, and when
Mr. Calhoun died, he left his swaggering and sometimes stagger
ing President pro tem. to the care of Messrs. Mason, Hunter and

321 1 have been unable to ascertain the exact time and place of the
delivery of this speech. It is given in Rev. Pol. Action, 105 fi.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 23 1
Butler, who were his factotums at the close of his life, and may
be considered the executors of his estate of Nullification.
"The first, (Mr. Mason of Virginia) you all remember, was
called upon by Mr. Calhoun to be his mouthpiece, and read the
last drivellings of his doctrines of disunion, while he sat by, the
glare of phrensy in his eyes, unable to stand or speak, evincing 'the
ruling passion strong in death' which was to ruin what he was not
permitted to control. He was the fanatic and martyr of ambition.
Peace to his spirit ! May it have better repose than he has left to
his country! The next man in the trio in the confidence of Mr.
Calhoun was Mr. Hunter of Virginia. He was withdrawn from
his party, like Mr. Atchison, by the tactics of Mr. Calhoun, who
had him elected to the Speakership of the House of Representa
tives, soon after entering it, by a coalition of the Whigs and
Nullifiers, Mr. Calhoun putting him forward in preference to his
devoted friends, Dixon H. Lewis and Mr. Pickens of South
Carolina, either of whom was more acceptable to the Democracy
of the House; but Mr. Calhoun gloried in putting down the will
of the majority of the Democracy in the person of Mr. Hunter,
and it is but justice to the latter to say that he followed his patron,
rather than his party, during his life, and that his spirit of hos
tility to the compacts which bind the Union together survives in
him. 322 The third man of the junto to whom Mr. Atchison
was committed is Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, Mr. Calhoun's
successor, who bears in his look the fiery temper of the furious
Nullifier, but has certainly, with more heat, less of the dangerous
factious feeling which lies at the bottom of the designs of his
colder, calculating companions.
"Mr. Atchison has ever since, and I believe before the death
of Mr. Calhoun, been decidedly domiciled with these men; they
have one household, ^^^ I am told, and make a little knot and

322 Immediately upon reading this reference to Senator Hunter, I
wrote to his daughter. Miss Martha T. Hunter, inquiring if there were
any papers or correspondence of Senator Hunter bearing upon his connection
with the Repeal ; but no further evidence was obtained.
323 An examination of the Congressional Directory discloses the fact
that as early as the first session of the 30th Congress, Senators Butler,

232 THE REPEAL OF
lump of leaven, that works up the whole batch that belongs to
the Southern institution, when occasion requires. This is the
brotherhood which brought the Southern delegation to unite in
a mass, many most unwillingly, to give adhesion to the plot to
make the united vote of the South the reward for that treachery
among the Northern aspirants which would sacrifice the solemn
compact that had guaranteed the peace of the country in fixing
the limit of that threatening subject of discord, which could only
be safe itself, or exist with safety to the country, by having agreed
boundaries and conditions assigned in compromises, in concessions
on the part of both sections of the nation it provoked to strife.
.... This dangerous measure has from first to last been man
aged by the nullifiers, with all the adroitness taught in the school
of their Machiavel. The bill originating with Atchison and the
club of Nullifiers who chamber with him, has been at every stage
in the hands of the Southern Senators, by means of a caucus or
nightly convention held by them with Northern Doughfaces
brought over by the lust of plunder and the temptation of getting
the vote of the South as a unit in the next Presidential con
vention." 324

Mason and Hunter occupied quarters at the same house in Washington.
They continued to be domiciled together until after the Repeal in 1854,
and while that measure was before Congress, Senator Atchison was dom
iciled with them.
324 In a letter to the Missouri Democrat, dated March 1, 1856, Mr.
Blair again alludes to the origin of the Repeal: "It is true beyond all
doubt or denial, that the very men to whose influence and exertions the
passage of the Nebraska bill is due, have already practically repudiated it
and trampled it under foot. . . . Mr. Atchison who really originated ihe
law, has several times invaded the Territory in person, and by brutal
violence trampled upon the law and robbed the actual settlers of their
rights under it. His accomplices in the scheme to pass the bill have been
his accomplices in its violation, for they have become his apologists from
one end of the country to the other. . . . It is well-known that the
flagitious act by which the Compromise was repealed was dictated by a
squad of Nullifiers {Atchison, Mason, Hunter Sf Co.) to the Doughface
Presidential aspirants from the North; that when Atchison, as he himself
boasted, gave 'Douglas twenty-four hours to bring In the bill,' and the
other Doughfaces had been won to the scheme by similar persuasives
operating upon their anxiety for Presidential honors, of which being un-

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 233
"Gentlemen, you make a d — d fuss about Doug
las, but Douglas don't deserve the credit of this Ne
braska bill. I told Douglas to introduce it. I
originated it. I got Pierce committed to it, and all
the glory belongs to me." ^^^ No longer can this be
dismissed as the empty boast, the loquacious froth,
of a man in liquor. The testimony of Colonel Park
er and Mr. Blair taken with all the preceding evi
dence would seem to settle definitively the question as
to the real authorship of the Repeal.
The preceding pages have been written in vain
if they do not justify the conclusion that the repeal of
the Missouri Compromise in 1854 had its real origin
in western conditions and particularly in the peculiar
political conditions existing in the State of Missouri ;
and that the real originator of the Repeal was David
R. Atchison. Apart from its interest as an episode of import
ance in the slavery controversy, the story of the gen
esis of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise has a
much wider significance. The narrative of the way in
which the struggle between two Missouri politicians
worthy, they could only hope to gain by truckling and subserviency, the
adhesion of these men, thus gained, was based upon the Southern members
of Congress, to obtain their assent to the overthrow of the Compromise.
It is believed that a majority of the Southern men were opposed to the
measure, and were coerced into it by the fear that they would not be sus
tained if they refused an advantage offered to them by the North. Thus
the treachery of Northern men to their own constituents was made to work
upon the honorable scruples of the Southern men, In order to accoraplish
an act which no respectable portion of any section desired should be done."
Rev. Pol. Action, 76.
325 Quoted from the account of Atchison's speech at AtchiSon, Kansas
Territory, Sept. 20, 1854, as given in the New York Tribune, June 4,
1855; see Appendix E.

234 THE REPEAL OF
for the senatorial succession was transferred to the
Congressional arena and there became transformed
from a local question into one of the gravest national
importance, is a signal instance of what has happened
in the history of American politics more often per
haps than is generally realized. It establishes the
essential importance of a careful study of State poli
tics in order to arrive at a satisfactory solution of not
a few problems in national politics. It is a concrete
illustration of the "significance of the frontier" in
American political history.

Appendix

APPENDIX A
A New Explanation of Senator Douglas's Motives
Messrs. J. Amos Barrett and A. E. Sheldon of
the Nebraska Historical Society are the authors of
perhaps the most recent and novel explanation of
Senator Douglas's purposes and motives in champion
ing the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. On
account of its plausibility, this explanation deserves
some consideration here. ^^^
It is now claimed that the defeat of the bill for
the organization of Nebraska Territory in March,
1853, in the closing days of the 32d Congress,
was due to the rivalry between Chicago and St.
Louis, on the one hand, and New Orleans and Texas,
on the other, over the route for the proposed railroad
to the Pacific coast. Referring to the Kansas-Ne
braska bill in the 33d Congress, these writers inquire,
"What was Douglas's motive in proposing .... to make
Nebraska a cock-pit where slavery and freedom should fight it out ?
.... For ten years [?] he had been trying to open up this
country lying straight in the path of commerce and emigration
from his own State; for five years he had seen Pacific railroad
projects blocked by commercial rivals, south and east. He had
seen those interests strong enough to kill his bill the spring before
even when strongly supported by the slave State of Missouri. He
knew that a hasty treaty with Mexico was being pushed to pre
pare the way for a Pacific railroad that would build up the rivals
326 This appeared in the Omaha (Nebr.) Bee, June 5, 1904.

238 APPENDIX A
of both Chicago and St. Louis. No one knew better than he that
commerce and migration to the Pacific would follow the route of
the first railroad. No one was closer than he to the railroad and
commercial interests of Illinois. He had secured the first United
States railroad land grant for the Illinois Central. The Rock
Island, first of all Illinois roads, had just reached the Mississippi.
Railroads would soon be built across Iowa. The natural route to
the Pacific was across Nebraska prairies. If opened to white set
tlement it was certain the rush of population would carry the
road on its shoulders and with it the trade not only of the west,
but of the world to Chicago. The price to pay was to satisfy
the slave sentimentalists of the south, to offer them, prima facie,
an equal opportunity with the north in settling the new territory,
knowing as Douglas knew that the superior energy and push of
the free state migration would win in Nebraska as it already
had in Oregon and California. Such an offer would cut the
ground from beneath the feet of the New Orleans-Texas-Missis
sippi opponents of the bill. They could no longer unite the south
against the measure on the score of pretended sympathy for the
Indian." 327
In support of this claim the refusal of the Sen
ate on March 3, 1853, to take up the consideration of
the bill by a vote of 23 to 17, is cited.
"It is this vote analysed which proves the real nature of
the opposition to the Nebraska bill — the combination of commer
cial rivals with slave jealousy which is determined to prevent a
Pacific railroad up the Platte valley. Eighteen out of the twenty-
three votes to lay on the table make the solid south — both whig
and democrat — against Douglas's bill; the other five are from the
commercial States of the northeast. Every one of the seventeen
votes for the bill is from the north and northwest except the two
votes from Missouri  This is a fight between Chicago
and St. Louis on the one hand, looking forward to the opening of
the Platte valley Pacific railroad ; New Orleans and Texas, on the
other, trying to block the northern route until they can push one

327 No indication is given of the evidence or the authorities upon
which this interpretation is based.

SENATOR DOUGLAS'S MOTIVES 239
through on southern parallels; and New York City helping the
southerners in order to maintain her own hold on the California
trade by sea and the isthmus of Panama  Before another Ne
braska bill could be debated in Congress the southern interest had
rushed the Gadsden treaty from Mexico to Washington, paying
$10,000,000 for a strip of desert in Arizona and New Mexico,
whose only use was to open a better .route for a southern Pacific
railroad." In the foregoing analysis of the vote in the Sen
ate, no account is taken of the fact that twenty-two
Senators did not vote — a number sufficient to se
riously weaken the conclusion just quoted. Further
more, Messrs. Barrett and Sheldon fail to take into
account the vote in the House which fails to support
their main contention. The only ostensible objec
tions to the bill were based upon considerations grow
ing out of treaty rights of Indians in the proposed
Territory. This bill passed the House by a vote of ninety-
eight to forty-three. An analysis of this vote dis
closes the fact that eighty-eight members, almost
forty per cent, were absent or did not vote : of these,
forty-two were from slave, and forty-six from free.
States. Of the ninety-eight votes cast in favor of the
bill, eighty came from free States, and eighteen, or
almost one-fifth, came from slave States. Of
those who voted against the bill, thirty, or
two-thirds, came from slave, and thirteen from
free, States. This analysis affords no evidence
that the vote of the House was determined
by considerations based upon any probable ef
fect which the organization of Nebraska Territory
might have in determining the location of the route

240

APPENDIX A

of the proposed Pacific railroad. Indeed, the analy
sis furnishes evidence against this conclusion:
Louisiana, one of the two States most directly in
terested in the extreme southerly route, contributed
two of the votes for the bill, and none against it;
Texas, the other State most interested in this route,
cast but one vote against the bill; two representatives
from Louisiana, and one from Texas, did not
vote. Only half of the New York delegation
voted at all, and instead of going solidly against the
bill, along with the friends of the southerly route,
two-thirds of them voted for the bill. The following
table shows the distribution of votes in the House : ^^^
Yeas Nays Not voting

Alabama .

I

4

2

Arkansas .

—

—

I

California .

—

_

2

Connecticut

3

-

I

Delaware .

-

—

I

Florida

—

_

I

Georgia

-

2

6

Illinois

6

-

I

Indiana

6

I

3

Iowa

I

I

-

Kentucky .

3

-

7

Louisiana .

2

—

2

Maine

4

I

2

Maryland .

I

3

2

Massachusetts

6

—

2

Michigan .

2

-

I

Mississippi .

-

I

3

Missouri

4

-

I

New Hampshire

2

—

2

New Jersey

3

I

I

32& House Journal, 2d Sess., 32d Cong., 272-273.

SENATOR DOUGLAS'S MOTIVES

241

New York .

II

6

17

North Carolina

I

6

2

Ohio

17

—

4

Pennsylvania

16

2

7

Rhode Island

_

_

I

South Carolina

_

5

2

Tennessee .

3

I

7

Texas

1

I

Vermont .

—

I

2

Virginia

3

7

4

Wisconsin .

3

-

—

Totals . . 98 43 88
There is but one remark in the debate in the
House over the Nebraska bill in 1853 which tends to
sustain the theory of Messrs. Barrett and Sheldon.
Mr. Hall of Missouri said:
"I trust, at any rate, that the gentleman's [Howard of Texas]
influence may be as potential in Texas in urging a law to secure
to the Indians their rights, as I fear it has been in this House to
array an interest against the organization of Nebraska Territory,
and the protection of our people who go to Oregon and California
every year.
"But I wish to suggest to the gentleman from Texas whether
he may not have been influenced to some degree, unconsciously, to
oppose this bill from considerations of this kind ? If the gentleman
can convince this House and the country that the Territory of
Nebraska shall not be organized, either at this session or any future
session of Congress; if the people of Texas can prevail upon the
Government of the United States to drive the Indians of Texas,
the Comanches, and other wild tribes, into the Territory of Nebras
ka, it may have the effect of rendering your overland routes from
Missouri and Iowa to Oregon and California so dangerous that
the tide of emigration will have to pass through Texas — an object
which Texas has most zealously sought to accomplish for many
years past.
"In addition to that, if in the course of time a great railroad

242 APPENDIX A
should be found necessary from this part of the continent to the
shores of the Pacific, and the doctrine prevail that all the territory
west of Missouri is to be a wilderness from this day henceforth
and forever, Texas being settled, the people of this country will
have no alternative but to make the Pacific road terminate at
Galveston or some other point in Texas  "329
All in all, the foundation of this new explanation
of Mr. Douglas's purposes, based, as it is, upon the
analysis of the vote in the Senate, is too weak to sus
tain the superstructure erected upon it. Moreover,
as relating more particularly to Senator Douglas's
motives, it is difficult to accept this as the true ex
planation. The real or fancied interests of constit
uents have been, and probably always will be, one of
the most potent factors in determining the public acts
of American politicians. If Mr. Douglas himself
had felt that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise
and the organization of Nebraska Territory and the
commercial interests of the people of Illinois were
vitally related, he would have championed the
Repeal regardless of any effect it might have
upon his prospects as a national leader. That being
true, it is highly probable that he would have publicly
avowed that ground when hard pressed, as he after
wards was, to defend his course in connection with the
Repeal. Nothing, however, has been discovered in
Mr. Douglas's speeches before the people of Illinois
in defense of his course which indicates that the pos
sible route of the Pacific railroad was a determining
factor.

329 Cong. Globe, xxvi, 558.

APPENDIX B
William C. Price
The name of Judge William C. Price of Mis
souri has not, so far as the author has discovered, been
associated by previous writers with the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise. That he played a part of
considerable importance in creating a strong senti
ment in western Missouri favorable to an early repeal
of the Compromise seems highly probable in view of
the facts furnished me by Mr. William E. Connelley.
This actor did not appear upon so conspicuous a stage
nor did he have the same personal motives for desir
ing the Repeal that inspired Senator Atchison.
Nevertheless he was mighty in the councils of his
party and had much to do with preparing the way for
the Repeal in connection with the Kansas-Nebraska
bill. There is a very brief biographical sketch of
Judge Price in Mr. Connelley's The Provisional
Government of Nebraska. From this sketch and
from a typewritten statement specially prepared by
Mr. Connelley for the author the facts here presented
are drawn. Born in Tazewell County, Virginia, about 1812,
William Cecil Price was a direct descendant of Lord
Baltimore who settled Maryland, and a cousin of the
Confederate General, Sterling Price, who was

244 APPENDIX B
Governor of Missouri from 1853 to 1857. In 1828
the parents of Price removed to Green County in the
southwestern part of Missouri, and were among the
first settlers in that section.
Price proved to be an able lawyer. He rapidly
became prominent in the politics of Missouri and
continued to occupy a conspicuous place in the coun
sels of the Democratic party until the Civil War. In
the decade just preceding the war Judge Price was
a recognized leader of the extreme and radical ele
ment, the "fire-eaters," of the Southern Democracy,
especially in the State of Missouri. Among the posi
tions of honor and trust to which he was elected were
Judge of Probate, Circuit Judge, District Attorney,
Representative in the State Legislature, and State
Senator. He also filled the office of Treasurer of the
United States under President Buchanan.
Physically, Judge Price was a man fully six feet
in height, spare, and of remarkably firm step and
erect carriage until he had passed the age of sixty.
He had black hair, only slightly streaked with gray
at the age of seventy-five; clear eyes, "dark as steel,
blue, as penetrating as daggers. His face was classic
in outline and feature. He had the small foot and
hand of the Southern gentleman. His presence
was commanding, his manner imperious." ^^°
Intellectually, Price was a man of far more than
average ability along some lines : in others his vision
of events was narrow. "He was an ideal leader — a
sanguine enthusiast. He had great command of lan-
330 A vTOod-cut engraving of Judge Price is to be found in Connelley's
Prov. Gov., 33.

WILLIAM C. PRICE 245
guage, and was a plausible speaker, but not logical.
His force consisted in the earnestness of his advocacy
and the tenacity with which he held to a cause after
he deemed it to embody his duty."
Judge Price was a man of great courage, moral
and physical. ^^^ He was a man too of an intensely
religious nature, and exceedingly familiar with the
Scriptures. He was a Methodist, and after the divi
sion of the Church, he adhered to the "Church
South." He was a thorough believer in the right
eousness of slavery, and even after the war, contended
that slavery was a blessing to the negro.
His devotion to the Southern cause bordered
upon fanaticism. He believed with all his soul that
the cause was right, and for a man of his temperament
no sacrifice was too great to make in its interest. He
was an ardent advocate of Secession, and when the
time came, he joined the Confederate army. He was
taken prisoner at Wilson's Creek, and confined in the
military prison at Alton, 111. "^
Judge Price has been dead for some years, dying
in Chicago in extreme poverty. He has one son
living, a lawyer, residing in Forsyth, Taney County,
Missouri. ^^^
331 Mr. Connelley says: "He was a dead shot with the old fashioned
rifle. He vfas sometimes challenged to fight duels and always selected
that weapon. His known ability to shoot well and the decadence of that
arm and inability of others to use it, caused an accommodation of all the
affairs. Upon receipt of a challenge he would say, 'rifles at sixty yards,
and I am ready any minute.' "
332 "He had a keen sense of humor. A friend once introduced him to
a stranger, and remarked, 'Judge Price was in the United States Treasury
under President Buchanan.' 'Yes,' said the Judge, 'and in the penitentiary
under President Lincoln.' " — Connelley's Prov. Gov., 28 n.
333 Benjamin F. Price, Mr. Connelley says, has no papers belonging

246 APPENDIX B
The information which Mr. Connelley has been
so kind as to furnish me was derived from a personal
acquaintance with Judge Price and from personal in
terviews. Mr. Connelley resided in Springfield,
Missouri, the home of Judge Price, from 1888 to
1892, and was engaged in the business of loaning
money for eastern people. Judge Price and Mr.
Connelley became very intimate friends. Having
been one of the first settlers in that part of Missouri,
Judge Price was able to furnish Mr. Connelley with
much valuable information "concerning land titles,
kinship, heirs, what became of certain people, etc.,
etc.," for which the Judge always received a fee. He
supposed himself to be still in the practice of his pro
fession, but only a few old people employed him.
Much of his time was spent in the large and commo
dious office of Mr. Connelley. ^^'*
Judge Price had then outlived his generation,
but continued to "live in the days of his power and
talked of little else." Mr. Connelley apparently was
the only man in that period of Judge Price's life who
appreciated the information about Missouri politics
which Judge Price could give, and Mr. Connelley
entreated him to endeavor to reduce his statements
to writing, but this seems to have been prevented by
his physical infirmities. ^^^
to his father which would throw more light upon his connection with the
Repeal. 334 Mr. Connelley's first wife was a relative of Judge Price.
333 "And his mind was just beginning to fail him," Mr. Connelley
adds. "He was fanatical on religious subjects; this was the evidence I
believed of the beginning of the weakening of his mental faculties. In
1894 I saw him for the last time, and he was feeble in mind and body."

WILLIAM C. PRICE 247
Mr. Connelley also says that
"Mordecai Oliver, once member of Congress from Mis
souri, and member of the Committee to investigate the troubles
in Kansas, 336 was also a resident of Springfield at the time I
lived there. Judge Price despised him, but I sometimes induced
them to discuss old times in my presence, as I knew them both well
and esteemed them both. Oliver was then Judge of the Criminal
Court. He had been a Whig, but was for slavery. On the sub
ject of the Missouri Repeal they agreed as to facts, though Oliver
at heart opposed the idea." 337
The part which Judge Price played in the re
peal of the Missouri Compromise will now be given
in Mr. Connelley's own words.
"Judge Price always maintained that the idea of the Repeal
originated with him. He claimed that he pressed this idea on the
South, saying that Missouri could not remain slave with Iowa
free on the north, Illinois free on the east, and a free State on
the west. In short, Missouri had to accomplish that Repeal or
become a free State. That was what Judge Price preached for
twenty years before the war. And the South allowed Missouri to
have her way 
"The Repeal was discussed in a gathering of extreme Demo
crats in New Orleans as early as 1850. Judge Price attended
this gathering, as he has often told me. I have the names of others
in attendance, but my papers are so much in disorder that I have
been unable to find the memorandum. I remember that Jefferson
Davis was at that meeting; Judge Price often related to me the
feeling speech he made there. I remember that J. P. Benjamin
and Toombs were there. And a Mr. Smith, 338 I think a minister
of the Gospel, either then or afterwards a Member of Congress

336 Mr. Oliver presented the Minority Report. — House Reports, ist
Sess., 34th Congress, ii, no. 200, 68 ff (1856).
337 Oliver was a member of the House when the Kansas-Nebraska
bill was passed, and spoke and voted for the bill. — Cong. Globe, xxviii,
Pt. ii, 1209 ; ibid., xxxi, 726.
338 Probably Rev. William Smith, a Democratic Representative in the
33d Congress, and a supporter of the Kansas-Nebraska bill.

248 APPENDIX B
from Virginia, was there  Without my papers I would
not say that this meeting was in 1850, but I am sure it was as
early as that 
"The idea, the intention, of the Repeal had been discussed
secretly in every gathering of pro-slavery men in Missouri for ten
years. Benton repudiated the idea in Springfield, Mo., in 1844,
so Judge Price informed me. And from that day the radical
slave faction of the Missouri Democracy fought him to the death.
Judge Price and other radical Southern leaders saw at that time
that a conflict was inevitable ; they were secessionists per se. Judge
Price was the man selected to lead the fight in Missouri for the
use of a part of the Indian country which was north of the old
Compromise line for Slavery. In this capacity he made known
to Benton the conclusion of the radical slave faction. Price and
Benton had been warm friends to this time. They never spoke
afterwards. Price registered a vow to drive Benton from public
life and accomplished it  In presence of a large company
gathered in a store on St. Louis street, in Springfield, Mo., he
vowed he would fight Benton to the death. To make it more
open and public he wrote his determination on the walls of the
store, where it remained until the building was torn down after
the Civil War. So said Judge Price to me many times.
"Judge Price was the head of the pro-slavery extremists of
the South. He was in close and constant communication with
Jefferson Davis, Robert Toombs, John C. Calhoun, John C.
Breckenridge, Judah P. Benjamin, and other Southern leaders,
for many years prior to the Civil War. These men looked to him
to inaugurate and carry out the measures in Missouri supposed to
be for the benefit of the aggressive policy of the extremists of the
slave power. No better selection was ever made. He believed
in the righteousness of slavery. And when enlisted in a cause he
knew no such word as fail. He would not sacrifice the thousandth
part of the most insignificant principle for any advantage which
might be offered him. Compromise was repugnant to him. He
would always drive straight ahead to the end in the way marked
out, let the consequences be what they might.
"The aggressive leaders of the slave power became dissatisfied

WILLIAM C. PRICE 249
with the course of Senator Benton of Missouri. They marked him
for defeat. While Benton had spent the greater part of his active
life in Washington and away from the people of Missouri, he
was still, in 1844, supreme in Missouri. While it is true that a
new generation had sprung up in Missouri who knew not Ben
ton, 339 it is also true that the older generation stood by Benton,
and by their aid he dictated the political policy of the State. It
was supposed to be political death for any man to even whisper
a breath against 'Old Bullion,' the idol of Missouri 
"Judge Price was never a rash man. He had a cool head and
a pulse even and regular under every trial. He knew what his
declaration meant. Benton was a born leader, and in manner
much like Judge Price. He was intolerant, often dictatorial and
unjust. The declaration of hostilities by Price was accepted by
Benton and the political battle royal of Missouri politics began,
and the first in the fight for the Repeal, though the issue was
veiled. Neither side urged the real issue between them. Price
hoped that with the defeat of Benton events would naturally shape
themselves as the Southern leaders desired. Benton hoped that
with his victory extreme agitation by the Southern leaders would
disappear. So this fight was not made on the issues really the
cause of it. Judge Price often said.
"Price was away from home for months at a time for the six
years following 1844. There were no railroads in Missouri and
travel was by horseback. He visited every part of the State time
and again. He selected Judge Geyer of St. Louis as the man to
defeat Benton. 340 When Benton returned to Missouri in 1850
he found himself actually beaten and turned down. The first
battle of the aggressive and rabid extremists of the slave power
was thus fought out in Missouri and was a victory for them.
"I asked Judge Price concerning the opening of Kansas to
settlement. He said:

339 Compare with Rogers's Benton, 275 ff.
340 Judge Geyer was a Whig. He voted for the Kansas-Nebraska bill.
Mr. Connelley states that Judge Price claimed also to have selected
Claiborne F. Jackson for the Governorship in i860. It will be recollected
that Jackson, when Governor, used every means in his power to carry
Missouri out of the Union.

250 APPENDIX B
" 'We were opposed to the opening of any part of the terri
tory of Old Missouri Territory to settlement, and for many reasons.
It had been set aside as the Indian Country. The Government had
removed the Eastern Indian tribes to that country and covenanted
with them that they should never be molested in their new home.
And this was done with a purpose, for if slavery could not go there
we wanted no one there except the Indians. And there was no
necessity for such settlement; millions of acres of better land were
open to settlement in Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, and Texas.
" 'To establish Territories in that country would, we knew,
bring up the subject of slavery, and its admission or exclusion.
We were excluded by the Compromise, but Southern men hoped
in some way to bring about the repeal of that measure in some
peaceful manner. Their most cherished hope for many years was
to look upon the old manner of retaining the influence of Slave-
State and Free-State at a balance in the Union by the admission
of one slave State and one free State when the time for the admis
sion of any part of that domain was demanded by the economic
conditions of the country. In the meantime we hoped to make
four States of Texas, and to have slavery established in the country
obtained from Spain and Mexico.
" 'Many things transpired which we could not foresee. The
discovery of gold in California was one of these. Then, as I
said, it was necessary to defeat Benton in Missouri. The effects
of this defeat were bad. He was ambitious, though old. He
should, according to our calculations, have retired when he was
defeated. But he immediately espoused the cause of Nebraska
Territory. There were two causes for this. He knew we were
opposed to it and he knew that the slave power was not prepared
to enter upon a struggle for its very existence. He wished to
precipitate things. And, he saw he could never regain his seat
in the Senate from Missouri. He had become interested in Fre
mont's explorations of the West.
" 'Benton was a man of ability and wonderful foresight. He
predicted that a great city would one day be built at the mouth
of the Kansas River. He intended to move there and live in the

WILLIAM C. PRICE 2^1
new Territory and eventually be one of its first United States
Senators when it was admitted as a State, as he had been one of
the first of Missouri's Senators. At my suggestion Atchison ac
cused him of this intention, and denounced him for it in a speech,
delivered I think in Liberty.
" 'One of the things which proved bad for us was the removal
of the Wyandotts to the mouth of the Kansas River. It was not
the intention that they should settle there. They were to have
a large tract of land in Southern Kansas (what is now Southern
Kansas). No one supposed they would buy land of another tribe;
such a thing had not been thought of. When they bought land
of the Delawares and obtained control of the mouth of the Kansas
River we were fearful that it was not for our best interest; there
were too many white men in the tribe. Then the tribe came
recently from Ohio where there was much opposition to slavery,
and where existed the most successful underground railroad for
conveying slaves to Canada. Then again, this tribe had but just
settled at the mouth of the Kansas River when the division of the
Methodist Church into Northern and Southern parts caused almost
a war between the factions of the tribe. The portion of the tribe
which wished to remain with the Old Church cried out against
slavery, and the question was kept in constant agitation where we
most desired nothing said. When it was supposed that Nebraska
Territory would be organized we were often solicited by the fac
tion in favor of the Church, South, to take a hand, but we were
averse to doing that and hoped the question would quiet down.
However, it did not do so. Benton, Blair, Brown, even Phelps, 3+1
encouraged its agitation. The moving spirits in the cause of the
Church, North, and in condemning slavery, were J. M. Armstrong
and Abelard Guthrie. 342 Guthrie remained in Washington much
of the time, as we believed then, at Benton's expense. At any
rate, it was known that he and Benton were much together; we
had no doubt they acted in concert.' " 343

341 F. P. Blair, Jr., B. Gratz Brown, J. S. Phelps. The last was a
Democratic Representative from Missouri in the 33d Congress.
342 For a sketch of Guthrie, see Connelley's Prov. Gov., loi.
343 Mr. Connelley concludes his statement and report of the conversa-

252 APPENDIX B

tion related above, with the statement that "the foregoing was hurriedly
written by me after the conversation with Judge Price, and I may have
misunderstood some things or may have put some things in a light he did
not intend. I was very busy in those days and intended to go over all
these matters in a more leisurely way, but the time never came when I
could. "I do not doubt the statements of Judge Price. I am sure they were
truthful, for he was a man of truth. Though, in long years he may have
fallen into some error unconsciously about even the part he played himself
in those times. It was my intention to try his statements by all the con
temporary evidence I could secure both for and against him. And I give
you what he told me, so far as I have been able to find it among my
papers, and advise you to do as I had intended. If it stands, all right;
if not all right  I believe the Repeal originated with him and that
he should have credit for it."

APPENDIX C
Senator Atchison's Letter, June 5, 1854
"In the month of May last year [1853] Col. Benton made
speeches at Kansas, Westport and Independence in which he
mounted ostensibly two hobbies : the central railroad to the Pacific
and the organization of the territory west of the Missouri and
Iowa. Those speeches were intended to create a false impression
upon the public mind, not to accomplish the objects which he
professed to desire; they were planned and delivered for one
object and that object was to stir up a 'pestiferous agitation' by
which his ambitious designs might be promoted. Prompted by
hatred against all who have refused to abandon their political
faith to further his schemes and look to the support of the old
federal and abolition cohorts of the North, it was he who first
sounded the tocsin of war against the slaveholding States of which
Missouri is one in connection iiith the Pacific railroad and the
organization of Nebraska and Kansas. 3'*'* It was from him that
the first appeal went forth to the freesoil and abolition fanatics to
resist each and every effort to open our territory west on constitu
tional grounds to settlement by the citizens of all the States of
the Union. "To deceive the unsuspecting in ilissouri he made a great
clamor at the same time about the central route and raised a false
alarm against the South. As if this was not sufficient he declared
that portions of that territory were open to immediate settlement
and urged the pioneers to rush into it. ^^^ly, if he was a sincere
friend of Nebraska and the central route did he seek thus unnec
essarily to embarrass those questions and mislead the people of
Missouri and the Union? You will remember that he pursued
his sinister designs in various letters during the following summer

344 The italics are mine.

254 APPENDIX C
and even caused a map to be prepared and distributed, the bad
character of which was fully exposed at that time.
"All of this I understood (at the time) and exposed and
what was then only conjecture is now realized. It was not the
organization of the territories and the central route for which he
cared; it was Col. Benton's advance by Free Soil aid for which he
was striving. Those questions were a mere pretext with him, a
cover under which the better to work his way insidiously to the
goal of his ambition. Hence in those speeches he said :
" 'To defeat me (Benton) is one of their modes of defeating
the road  The point at which they can do us no harm is in
the organization of the territories on the Kansas and the Platte.
Two things are needed there: first, the establishment of the terri
torial government; and the next, the extinguishment of Indian
titles. Both are points of difficulty and peculiarly subject to dan
gers from insidious opposition. The Indian treaties, even when
negotiated, will have a perilous course to run through the Senate
(where the proceedings are secret) and where a minority of one-
third could defeat them and where the pestiferous question of free
soil will mix itself with the decision. Near thirty years ago the
United States made a general extinction of Indian titles west of
Missouri to be assigned in parcels to emigrating tribes. Part has
been assigned, part not; and this unassigned part I hold to be
open to settlement without objection from the Indians.'
" 'The danger from insidious opposition' and whence it was
to come those speeches showed. They artfully and purposely
created the danger by awakening and inviting that pestiferous
Free Soil opposition; and by seeking at once without waiting for
constitutional action to involve the settlers and the settlement of
the country in the inextricable difficulties which would furnish
another pretext for fanning the pestiferous flame thus sought to
be kindled; subsequent events have demonstrated Benton's object.
He has since become the recognized champion of that very Free
Soil faction in opposition to the constitutional and republican mode
of settling those territories. He has led the very 'pestiferous'
host which he pretended to fear. He has become the commander
of the 'pestiferous Free Soil' opposition to Nebraska and Kansas!
Did I mistake his objects in May, 1853? Judge ye!

SENATOR ATCHISON'S LETTER 255
"Again in his letter of May 15, 1853, 345 Benton said:
" 'In the substance of speeches which I delivered at Kansas,
Westport and Independence (and which were intended for the
whole State although delivered in one county) you will see this
opposition described and that under both of its characters of fair
and foul, in the latter of which I include the opposition from this
State and the whole of which has its root in that traitorous nulli
fication of which you speak  At the last session this same
treasonable doctrine manifested itself in a clandestine opposition
to Nebraska because it was Free Soil,' etc. 346
"This anyone can see was directly intended to arouse the
abolition spirit of New England and New York and Ohio and to
excite the abolitionists of St. Louis into activity. It required but
a small portion of that foresight which Benton so ostentatiously
claims to possess to detect his real end and aim in using such lan
guage. The opposition of myself to Free Soil he denounced not
to injure me with slaveholders, of course not ; but help himself
with the Free Soil enemies of slaveholders] That was his object
and his only object. To preach Freesoilism was the way to com
mend himself to Northern Freesoilers ; he did this to gain Northern
not Southern support. I was opposed to his Free Soil notions
and still am opposed to them whether preached by him, Giddings,
Sumner, Hale, Garrison, Theodore Parker or Wendell Phillips;
whether 'insidiously' manufactured in Missouri, or boldly pro
claimed in open rebellion and the shedding of blood in the streets
of Boston. That treasonable doctrine and all treasonable doctrines
which call for resistance, open or insidious, to the Constitution and
laws I must, I shall always, oppose.
"But on what were Col. Benton's charges against the Demo
crats in Congress, the Administration, the Democratic party of
Missouri and myself based? He has defined his position to be in
favor of Free Soil in Nebraska and Kansas. In my speech at
Parkville [Aug. 6] and elsewhere in Missouri / defined my posi
tion, a position which he pronounced 'traitorous nullification' and
'treasonable doctrine,' a position occupied by every sound Democrat

345 The Cole county letter, quoted in Chapter IV.
346 These italics are Atchison's.

256 APPENDIX C
in and out of Congress and by the present Democratic Adminis
tration and fully and clearly taken and maintained in the Kansas-
Nebraska bill 3'*7 which has just passed Congress despite of Ben
ton and his Free Soil friends in opposition to it and which has
promptly received the approving signature of Franklin Pierce as
President of the United States. That position was against Free
soilism and was thus distinctly announced by me at Parkville.
.... 348
"Thus the doctrine for which I contended and which Benton
fiercely denounced was distinctly enunciated by me. On that he
joined issue both in Missouri and in Congress. 3'" I contended
for the right of the people in the Territories to govern themselves
under the Federal Constitution, and to form republican State
constitutions in such wise as they might deem expedient, when
they sought admission into the Union as States. I contended that
each State on coming into the Union, has a right to come in on
terms of equality with the other States. I denied the right of
Congress to say to any State of this Union that it should establish
or abolish slavery. The Missouri Compromise and the Missouri
restriction practically asserted that Congress had such rights.
Here then was and still is the issue; Benton insisted that Kansas
and Nebraska should be Freesoil; that the law of organization
should be so framed and ought to be so framed,^^^ that all of his
slaveholding constituents would be excluded from those Terri
tories; that the citizens of one half the Union should be also ex
cluded; that Congress had the right and ought to exercise it, to
make Territories and consequently States freesoil States and Terri
tories. I accepted that issue and so did the Democrats of Missouri.
The battle has been fought in Congress over the Douglas bill 351
and the Democracy has won a proud victory. On the one side
stood the Administration, the true-hearted Democrats of the North,

347 These italics are mine.
348 Here occurs a quotation from his Parkville speech. See Chapter
IV. 349 The italics are mine.
350 These italics are Atchison's.
351 The italics are mine.

SENATOR ATCHISON'S LETTER 257
nearly every Congressman from the Southern Whigs and Demo
crats, a majority from every State west of the Alleghanies, from
the Falls of St. Anthony on the north to the Gulf and Rio Grande
on the south (except Ohio and Wisconsin), aided gallantly by
your sister State on the Pacific. On the other side were (to use
the language of Benton when in 1830 he was battling for the
Democracy and the West) 'a motley group, a most miscellaneous
concourse, the speckled progeny of many conjunctions, veteran
Federalists, benevolent females, politicians who have lost their
caste,' etc., all marching under the leadership of Benton, Giddings,
Sumner, Chase, Seward and Company. The lines were thus
drawn on the national theater as they had previously been
drawn by Benton in our State, 351 the Democracy battling for
the Constitution and the rights of the people to govern themselves
against the gathered fragments of old Federalism, abolitionism
and all the varied isms of which Freesoil has been so prolific in
these later times. My position on this subject was well-known
in Washington, 351 and the issue that Benton made upon it I never
shrunk from  352
"The same distinct acceptance of the issue tendered by Benton
was not only made by me in my speech at Parkville, but also at
Weston and Fayette and elsewhere. At Weston I declared:
"'.... I will support a bill to organize a government for
that Territory upon the condition that such bill contains no restric
tions upon the subject of slavery; and not otherwise. I will vote
for a bill that leaves the slaveholder and non-slaveholder upon
terms of equality. I am willing that the people who may settle
there and who have the deepest interest in this question should
decide it for themselves. ^'^ As a very large and respectable por
tion of my constituents are directly and indirectly interested in
slave property, I am unwilling that they with this species of
property should be excluded. I will give no advantage to one
citizen over another  That there may be no mistake and
that I may not be misunderstood hereafter, I now say emphatically

352 Here occurs another quotation from his Parkville speech, and a
brief, caustic, allusion to Theodore Parker and the Anthony Burns case.
353 The italics are mine.

258 APPENDIX C
that I will not vote for any bill that makes Nebraska Freesoil
Territory. I have not, and do not intend upon any occasion to
yield one inch to the spirit of freesoilism and abolitionism, whether
they exhibit themselves at home or at Washington.'
"/ trust Fellow-citizens, that I have redeemed this pledge to
the letter, 353 I congratulate you and the country that the boldness
with which this new abolition crusade was met has resulted in
banishing, it is hoped forever, from the halls of Congress the long
continued agitation of fanatics against our property and our rights,
the guarantees of the Constitution and the cherished principles of
self-government. "As Benton, however, continued his assaults in letter after
letter during the whole of last summer, it became necessary for me
repeatedly to meet the issue he had formed  354
"It was thus down to the latest moments before leaving Mis
souri to attend the meeting of Congress at the present session.
I openly accepted the issue ihat Benton had made. 355 Early in
the present session Judge Douglas, as chairman of the Committee
on Territories, introduced a bill virtually repealing the Missouri
restriction. To avoid all possibility of cavil or doubt he phrased
that part of the bill anew. Then came in Congress the fierce
conflict which Benton had foreseen and for which he had prepared
the Freesoilers and abolitionists and which after nearly five months'
struggle resulted in the triumph of the Constitution and justice.
I declared that I would vote for no bill unless it rid us of the
unconstitutional and anti-republican and iniquitous restriction of
1820. So said a large majority of Congress. The Administration
nobly came up to the same standard; Benton threw himself into
the leadership of the opposition, notwithstanding he first obtained
the confidence and support of the Missourians by his opposition to
the infamous restriction and owes his political life to that fact;
notwithstanding in an elaborate speech in 1830 he demonstrated by
the record that from the first organization of the government to
that hour, northeastern federalism, with its ally abolitionism had
354 Here occurs a quotation from his speech at Fayette. See Chapter
IV. 355 The italics in this paragraph are mine.

SENATOR ATCHISON'S LETTER

259

always warred against the growth and prosperity of the West and
that the South generally aided by the true Democrats of the North
have striven to beat back the tide of federal hostility; notwith
standing the constitutional equality of the States was at issue and
the rights and interests of his constituents; notwithstanding the
West in almost solid column was demanding that the Indian wall
on our frontier should be removed and Missouri be permitted freely
to expand westward towards the Pacific ; notwithstanding the 'wolf
howl' of abolitionism and federalism was again raised in order to
roll back from our State the tide of wealth and prosperity about
to flow through it; despite too his talk last spring and summer
about the importance and necessity of the immediate settlement
and organization of that Territory, he was foremost in the contest
against right and justice, laboring with bold and unblushing
effrontery to defeat what he had pretended most earnestly to desire,
even to the extent of villifying the Administration and a Demo
cratic Congress, falsifying history, and openly joining in the abo
lition crusade against Missouri and the West and South with such
coadjutors as Giddings and Chase.
"To the very last he cooperated with those enemies of the
West and South in the most disorganizing and factious efforts to
prevent a decided majority in Congress from passing a constitu
tional and anti-freesoil law for the immediate organization of
Nebraska and Kansas.
"I now appeal to every man of candor and common sense in
Missouri whether I was not right when last summer I boldly took
up the gauntlet which Benton hurled at my feet, and stripped from
him the mask he wore; declared that the 'insidious opposition' to
the territorial organization and the 'traitorous nullification' were
his; that his pretended love for Nebraska and the Central route
were mere hypocritical pretenses on his part. Subsequent events,
history, recorded history, has made that fact which was then mere
prediction. "This issue made by Benton 356 between Freesoil and abolition
ism on the one hand, and the Constitution and the rights of self-
government on the other hand has to be met in Missouri at the

26o APPENDIX C
ballot boxes next August. 356 The abolitionists of the North and
Benton their champion are marshalling their forces for the contest.
The first great conflict is in our State. 356 Hold Benton and the
Swiss guard to the issue they have made. We only ask that there
shall be no dodging; that they shall stand to the banner which
he has ostentatiously erected. I know that thousands who did not
understand his 'insidious' designs, honest and good men, have
deserted him during the last three months; men who are sincere
and zealous Democrats but who last year could not be made to
believe that one so long honored by Missouri could so foully betray
her and the Constitution. Now Benton himself has given them
proof positive. There is no room for doubt from this hour
forward  357
"Before passing to another point I would refer to the third
resolution adopted by a county meeting in St. Louis on the ninth
of January last, 358 which meeting was composed of the confidential
friends and mouthpieces of Benton. At that meeting Messrs.
W. V. N. Boy, Thomas L. Price, B. Gratz Brown, A. Kreckel,
H. Dusenbury and John A. Kasson made the speeches. A com
mittee of twenty-four reported the resolution through F. P. Blair,
Jr., and said resolution was on motion of A Keyser unanimously
adopted, according to the report in Benton's organ. The third
resolution was as follows:
" 'Resolved that we are in favor of the immediate organization
of a territorial government for Nebraska, and that we regard all

356 The italics are mine.
357 At this point Mr. Atchison took up the consideration of the subject
of the Pacific railroad and said: "Intimately connected with this the main
issue made by Benton was his effort to mislead the people concerning a
railroad to the Pacific. One who did not know the hollow insincerity of
Benton would have supposed last year that he was panting for the open
ing of Congress in order that he might introduce and carry through a bill
to construct a railroad to the Pacific without waiting for what he asserted
was the unnecessary surveys of United States engineers as well as to carry
a bill for the immediate organization of Nebraska. The latter he asserted
was an essential step to the former. Yet I have shown that instead of
supporting he became a leader of the opposition to territorial organiza
tion  "
358 This meeting was mentioned in Chapter VI.

SENATOR ATCHISON'S LETTER 261
who <9pose it upon whmtever pretext, as hcsdle to the best interests
of die State.'
"Thus out of die mouths of his own diosQa M^-itnesses CoL
Benton stands condemned 'as kostile to tke bat interests of the
State.' ^
"Tke Douglas bill was a uestent messure. It was Jengmed
to add to tke fxncer end rpe^k of tke West. ^^ TTie same po
litical party wfaidi exposed die organizatirai of Lou^iana and
Texas and threatened to dksolve the Union if diat acqiusitutn was
maife; that fqqtosed die sending of forces to protect westem setde-
ments during die early Indian wars; that t^^wsed the war of i8ia
and rejoiced at die massacres in the nordiwest and mourned over
the triumidis of MKomb and Brown and Harnscm and Jacksim;
that in the Hartford CuiYaition hatdied Freesoilism by resolving
diat another slave State should never be admitted into the L'nion :
diat caused die MESOurt agitaticHi and that agitation kept this
State out of die L'nion for about two years, and forced the p^sage
of the so-called Missouri Comproociise; that denounced the war
with Mexico ; diat ccmcocted the Wilmot Ptotiso : that contended
against die 'indemnity for the past and securi^ for the future'
wherAy New ^lexico, Utah and Califomia were acquired; that
erected die Bufblo platform to defeat Goi. Cass; a party of sec
tional (and abiditioabt) caste, ukiih kas never feUed to uor
agmmst tke TFest, ^^ the Ovistitution and the honor of die country.
Well mi^t St. Louis declare Benton as hostile to her best interests;
for no portion of the countiy is to be so largely baie£ted by «H>en-
ing Nebraska and Kansas to setdement. All of the railroad
intcTKts are largely interested, for a terminus aa the westem
frontier, Uodced up by an Indian wall, is veiy different fran an
indefinite extension west dirough new and rapidly opening setde-
ments. Every interest in St. Louis was connected with thfe
terribmal question and there can be no plausible excuse for the
envenomed hostility which die St. Loufe r^iresentatiw has
manifested since the Senate first comniaiced to act cm the subject
duiii^ the present sessim of Congress. Hfe friends evai had

35? Tbe italics art Atriiisoo'i
J^The italics are mine.

262 APPENDIX C
the sagacity to see all this last January and then to denounce him
in advance if he dared to betray those interests as he has since done.
"In his recent speech against the Kansas-Nebraska bill and
the Administration, Col. Benton said he should obey the instruc
tions of the Legislature passed in 1847. This is an afterthought
for him. When the instructions to which he refers were in force
he voted against their requirement, as he did against the known
wishes of nine-tenths of his constituents, when the Texas annexa
tion measure was before the Senate. The same Legislature that
elected him to the Senate at the session of 1844-45, elected him
under a distinct pledge given by his friends that he would obey
the instructions which might be passed. Without that pledge he
could not have been elected. That Legislature passed these instruc
tions intended, as he and all others well knew, expressly for him:
" 'Fifth resolution : That in the opinion of this General
Assembly, a great majority of the people of this State prefer that
Texas should be annexed to the United States without dividing
her territory into slaveholding and non-slaveholding States; but
leaving that question to be settled by the people who now or may
hereafter, occupy the territory that may be annexed.' 361
"Thus did Missouri announce the same great doctrines for
which I contended and on which the Douglas bill was framed 362
and against which Benton has joined issue with me, with the Legis
lature and with the Democracy of Missouri, with Congress and
with the Administration.
"Again our State declared through her Legislature that doc
trine in 1849, the same to which no one save Benton and a few
St. Louis Freesoilers have ever dared openly to express any dissent
in our State. That doctrine, the same as that on which Douglas's
bill and the Administration stand as well as the whole Democracy
of the United States was thus enunciated by a resolution of our
General Assembly:
" 'Resolved, That the right to prohibit slavery in any Terri
tory belongs exclusively to the people thereof and can only be

361 The italics are mine. Cong. Globe, xiv, 154. See Chapter VI.
362 Xhe italics are mine.

SENATOR ATCHISON'S LETTER 263
exercised by them in forming their Constitution for a State gov
ernment or in their sovereign capacity as an independent State.'
"Benton has in this as in most other matters shown 'himself
'hostile to the best interests of the State' and to its cherished opinion.
Ever since he commenced courting Freesoil support he has turned
his back upon Missouri and his constituents.
"Fellow-citizens, in the great contest which has just ended
in Congress upon the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the whole Missouri
delegation has proved true to the instructions of the Legislature,
to the Constitution and to the rights of self-government, ex
cept only the representative from St. Louis. Geyer, Lamb, Phelps,
Caruthers, Miller, Oliver, and Lindley have stood up like men
for the Douglas bill and deserve well of their constituents.
"David R. Atchison.
"Washington, June 5, 1854." ^"

363 This letter was printed in the Missouri Republican, June 21, 1854.

APPENDIX D
Colonel 'Parfzer's "Secret History of the Kansas-
Nebraska Bill"
Colonel John A. Parker's article on The Secret
History of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, referred to in
the text, was afterwards published in pamphlet
form, ¦'*'* and in that form is preceded by an "Intro-
364 Of this pamphlet, I have seen but two copies. One is in the
Boston Public Library, and the other was loaned to me by Mrs. R. E.
Wynne of Tappahannock, Essex County, Virginia, the only surviving child
of Colonel Parker. The title pages of these two copies differ. That of
the Boston copy is as follows: "Reprinted from the National Quarterly
Review, July, i88o. Copyrighted. What Led to the War, or the Secret
History of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. By Col. John A. Parker of Virginia.
With an Introductory Note by Waldorf H. Phillips of New York. New
York, Thompson and Morean, Printers, 51 & 53 Maiden Lane, 1880."
The title page of the Wynne copy is as follows: "The Missing Link.
Reprinted from the National Quarterly Review for July, 1880. Copy
right. What Led to the War or the Secret History of the Kansas-
Nebraska Bill by Col. John A. Parker of Virginia. With an Appendix
containing Sketches and Reminiscences of 'The Richmond Enquirer' and
'Whig' and their Editors, and an Introductory Note by Waldorf H. Phil
lips of New York. Washington, D. C. Gray & Clarkson, Printers and
Publishers, 1886."
The body of the two editions of the pamphlet are, I think, precisely
alike, except that the Introductorj' Note of the Wynne copy contains this
statement which did not appear in the earlier reprint: "This was written,
viz., in October, 1883. Hon. Jefferson Davis has written to Colonel Parker,
and confirmed every fact contained in this paper." Very few papers he-
longing to Colonel Parker have been preserved, and such as are known to
be in e-xistence are in the possession of Mrs. WjTine through whose courtesy
I have been able to examine them. The Davis letter has not been found.
There is some correspondence of Parker and Davis in the Confederate

THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA BILL 265
ductory Note" written by Waldorf H. Phillips of
New York, giving a number of facts in Colonel
Parker's life, of which the most important follow.
At the time the pamphlet was written Colonel
Parker was, and had been since 1859, representing the
State of Virginia "in a matter of very great import
ance to her and to other States." He and Mr. Thom
as Green, a son-in-law of Thomas Ritchie, were as
sociated as agents for the State of Virginia to procure
a settlement from the Federal Government for money
loaned by the State of Virginia for the purpose of
erecting public buildings, and also for money loaned
in the War of 181 2. In the settlement of these claims
which were not finally adjusted until after his death
in 1894, Colonel Parker was engaged for some
years. ^^^ For forty years he had been officially con
nected with the Federal Government either at home
or abroad. In 1835 he was sent by President Jack
son on a secret mission to Texas connected with the
independence of that State. In 1851 he was appoint
ed Librarian of the House of Representatives. In
1855 he was Secretary of the Judiciary Committee
of the House which then had charge of the investi
gation of the great frauds consummated by Gardiner
and others under the Mexican treaty. In 1856 Park-

Museum at Richmond, Va., but I have been unable to get trace of this
valuable document.
I have also been unable to discover who Waldorf H. Phillips may have
been. Mrs. Wynne could give me no information upon this point. Mr.
Phillips concluded his Introductory Note by saying that "Colonel Parker
is not even acquainted with Mr. Phillips, nor does he know certainly how
he obtained the information he has given in his introductory  "
365 Beverley Tucker was the agent for South Carolina in a similar
matter. Mrs. Wynne is authority for these statements.

266 APPENDIX D
er was appointed Register of the Land Office of Ne
braska; in i860 he was appointed United States Con
sul at Honolulu. After he had made three requests
to be relieved from this post the request was finally
granted in 1862. After his return to the United
States Colonel Parker was offered a mission to South
America which he declined. ^**
Mr. Phillips states that
" . . . .It was Colonel Parker's good fortune to be closely
connected, politically and officially, with some of the principal
actors, and with others by the closest ties of personal friendship
and family relations. Among the latter was one who exerted more
influence in making and unmaking public men in the United
States than any other man in the same period, and of the posses
sion of whose entire confidence, to a degree which he did not fully
impart to his own son. Colonel Parker has abundant evidence. This
was Mr. Ritchie, 367 editor of the Washington Union. There
was another, who reached the Presidency, whose confidential friend
our author was for more than twenty years." 368

366 "His record in all Departments," say Mr. Phillips, "shows that
he has always discharged the duties assigned him to the entire satisfaction
of the appointing power as well as his own lasting merit."
367 Thomas Ritchie, who was also editor of the Richmond Enquirer
for forty years; died 1854.
368 Probably President Buchanan. The Virginia Magazine of History
and Biography for July, 1905, contains some "Reminiscences of Colonel
Parker" relating to the nomination of Buchanan and of Parker's relations
with him.
In these "Reminiscences," written in March, 1877, there occurs the fol
lowing reference to the Kansas-Nebraska bill, from which it is fair to
infer that Colonel Parker had contemplated the publication of his story
of the origin of the Repeal several years before his article was published:
" 'The Kansas-Nebraska' bill. Only two persons are now living who
know the real author of that bill, its history and purposes. Judge Douglas
was the reputed author — and its patron, and the American people, even
now, think he was the real author; I knov:) he was not — and I knoiu how
and why he became its active patron.
"The true history of the bill is written, it has never yet been published.

THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA BILL 267
In anticipation of the very pertinent query why
the publication of the facts contained in this pam
phlet had been so long delayed, Mr. Phillips has this
to say :
". . . .It has been only after persistent urging on the part
of his friends and many prominent gentlemen all over the coun
try-, and after many years of deliberation, that Colonel Parker
has been induced to wTite his article. He believed until \-er\-
lately, that the time had not come for a calm consideration and an
impartial judgment of the facts. The angry and bitter feeling en
gendered by the late struggle had not sufficiently died out  "
Mr. Phillips adds that
"Colonel Parker desires to say that no confidence is violated
in making this publication, and that the information it contains
was honorably acquired. He also wishes to distinctly disclaim
any intention to assail the motives of the originator of the impor
tant measure, who, he believes was governed by the highest con
siderations which bind man to his fellow man, the belief that he
was honorably serving his country-, and fidelity to personal and
political friendship, or of any of the distinguished actors of whom
he speaks or to whom he alludes. If their acts proved disastrous,
they should not be too harshly judged. It is frequently the case,
that men, intending no injun," and with the purest motives, commit
great and lamentable errors."
Mr. Phillips's introductory statement is not the
only testimony bearing upon Colonel Parker's credi-
bilit}- as a witness. As has already been stated. Colo
nel Parker in 1851 was appointed Librarian of the
House of Representatives at Washington. Early in
December, 1853, at the opening of the first session of
the 33d Congress, the session which enacted the Re
peal, Parker was removed from that office by the
but may be before I die — or afterwards, and also these sketches, which will
be found among mv papers, with my correspondence, to sustain and fully
verify- ever\- statement I have made."

268 APPENDIX D
Clerk of the House, Mr. John W. Forney of Penn
sylvania, with whom the power of appointment and
removal was then vested. This action of Forney's
seems to have occasioned no small amount of agita
tion and indignation among the members of the Vir
ginia Congressional delegation, and the Richmond
Enquirer devoted considerable space to the circum
stances of the removal, including the publication of
a long letter •'® from Colonel Parker in which he re
plies to certain criticisms by Mr. Forney. In all this
there is nothing which tends to throw discred
it upon Colonel Parker or to impeach the
value of his testimony. "Fairfax," the Wash
ington Correspondent of the Richmond En
quirer, spoke of him at this time in the following
terms: "Colonel John A. Parker of Virginia is
known to most of your readers as a politician of abil
ity and as an honorable gentleman. He is and al
ways has been a sound Democrat and has been Libra
rian of the House of Representatives for the past two
years  " "°

369 This letter was dated December lo, 1853, and appeared in the
Enquirer, December 20.
370 Writing December 6, T853, in the Enquirer of December 9, 1853.
"Fairfax'' continues: "This office is within the gift of the Clerk of the
House. To-day Mr. Parker was removed by Forney. The cause assigned
is, the absence of Mr. Parker from Washington from time to time during
the summer when there is nothing to do. . . . The majority of the Virginia
delegation would not vote for Forney for Clerk and Mr. Parker would not
be made the tool to advocate the reelection of the 'stool pigeon' candidate
and hence his removal. It is to revenge himself upon the Virginia dele
gation that Forney has struck off Parker's head. Probably he may yet
regret the gratification of his malice. The Librarian has no connection
with the clerkship and there is no reason why he should be appointed by
the Clerk. A movement is now on foot to make the office elective and to
restore Mr. Parker to his place by vote of the House. This should be done.

THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA BILL 269
The facts stated above create a strong presump
tion in favor of the reliability of Parker's testi
mony. It may be alleged on the other hand that at
the age of seventy-six ^^^ a man's memory is likely to
be so defective as to be quite unreliable. To this the
rejoinder may be made that the circumstances con
nected with an event of such interest and importance
and magnitude as the repeal of the Missouri Com
promise would sink more deeply in one's mind and be
recalled after the lapse of years with much greater
distinctness and accuracy than circumstances of or
dinary importance. Especially would this line of
reasoning hold true of a professional politician a
part of whose business it is to observe accurately and
hold tenaciously in mind events of such supreme po
litical importance as was the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise. After this preliminary examination of Colonel
Parker's credibility as a witness, we are prepared to
take up his testimony.
"The passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and the execution
It is a point of honor with the Virginia and Southern Democrats who re
fused to vote for Forney; the justification or the condemnation of their
course is involved in the decision. There can be no doubt of the action of
the House. It will be glad to do justice  " On the thirteenth, Fair
fax wrote: "The resolution to elect a House Librarian was defeated to-day
by four votes. It will yet pass in some shape or other. The majority of the
House are in favor of it." In the Enquirer of December i6, 1853. See
Cong. Globe, xxviii, Pt. i, 22, 34, 35, 40, and the remarks of Mr. Bayly
of Virginia, December 22, 1853.
371 Parker was born February 20, 1804, in Westmoreland County,
Virginia, and died, June, 1894, in his ninety-first year. This would make
his age at the time his pamphlet first appeared, seventy-six. Mrs. Wynne
states in a letter that "he was in perfect health when he wrote that
pamphlet and had the most remarkable memory I ever knew. He was
called a 'walking encyclopaedia.' Never forgot dates."

270 APPENDIX D
of the law by Presidents Pierce and Buchanan, led directly to se
cession and its consequences. The Kansas-Nebraska bill was the
most important which ever passed the Congress of the United
States. Yet the American people to this day do not know, and
cannot have known, who was its author, or what were the imme
diate objects to be accomplished by its passage. Stephen A. Doug
las was, and still is, believed by the country to have been its
author. It is a fact that he, as Chairman of the Senate Committee
on Territories, reported it to the Senate, and was its able and
active supporter and advocate. But Mr. Douglas was not its
author. "That the people of to-day may know the importance of that
bill, it is necessary that a brief sketch be given of the slavery
question. The writer desires to say, and it is due to the reader, that
he was in 1854 iti a position to know many facts and incidents
connected with this bill which were not accessible to the public,
or even to the press of the country. He believes only one other
person, perhaps two, to be now living, familiar with the origin
and secret history of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. He may also add
that he is familiar with, and has taken part in, the slavery agita
tion since 1 8 19 and 1820, and that he was a slaveholder until
the late war. As early as 1835 he was convinced that slavery
was one of the greatest evils we had to contend with, and the
greatest barrier to national prosperity. These views were ob
tained by observations made in extensive travels through the
Southern and Western States. He, however, disapproved of the
slavery agitation as conducted by Garrison and his coworkers.
He believed that their course delayed the emancipation of the
slaves, so much desired by some of the most distinguished men,
slave-owners, in Virginia, in 1831 and 1832, who were then en
deavoring to devise some scheme for gradual emancipation."
A sketch of the slavery controversy in the United
States from the beginning down to 1854, covering
several pages, is here omitted.
"The people of Missouri had commenced the cultivation of
hemp, a crop yielding large profits, but which it was believed

THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA BILL 271
could not be successfully produced except by slave labor. 372 That
portion of Nebraska which is now Kansas was regarded as pecul
iarly adapted to the cultivation of hemp. It was known by the
representatives of Missouri that for this reason the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise would be popular with the people of that
State. "Thomas H. Benton had served thirty years in the Senate,
but had then been superseded. He had lost caste with a portion
of the Democratic party, after having been for many years its
trusted and fearless leader. He never was popular with either of
the extreme wings of the party, and was specially objectionable
to the friends of Mr. Calhoun. He was too national to be pop
ular with the nullifiers and secessionists of the South or abolition
ists of the North. He had been the strongest supporter of Mr.
Van Buren's administration, and many believed that he sympathiz
ed with that gentleman in 1848. After being defeated for the
Senate he was elected to the House of Representatives, but he
looked forward to a reelection to the Senate when the term of his
late colleague, the Hon. D. R. Atchison, should expire. He had
been further alienated from the Democratic party by his opposi
tion to Mr. Polk's administration during the Mexican War, and
the bitter warfare which he waged against Secretary Marcy, Mr.>
Ritchie, and other prominent men of the party. Mr. Polk had
made an effort to conciliate him, and against the protests of three
members of his Cabinet, he appointed him Generalissimo of the
armies in Mexico, to which office he was confirmed by the Senate.
372 Paxton's Annals, 63 ff. gives a few interesting statements about
the production and prices of hemp in that county during this period.
"The Springfield (Massachusetts) Republican is permitted to extract
the following passages from a private letter written by an East
ern gentleman now resident in Missouri to a friend in Springfield. The
Republican says: 'We know the gentleman well, and his statements are
entirely reliable.' 'I am informed that the adjacent territories of Kansas
and Nebraska to the distance of two hundred miles west, furnish hemp
lands equal to the best in Missouri. Already hundreds of hemp growers
have made their selections for new farms in the vile-born territories and
yet we have heard that Kansas and Nebraska are unsuited to slave labor.' "
The geography and cliraate are then described at some length. — Quoted
in Missouri Republican, June 23, 1854.

272 APPENDIX D
He was clothed with diplomatic powers. In one hand he was to
hold the sword and in the other the olive branch. But just at the
time he was to leave on his mission, a misunderstanding arose and
he was not sent. Mr. Atchison had been President of the Senate,
was a native of Kentucky, and was very popular, especially in the
South and with the friends of Mr. Calhoun. Mr. Benton and
he had become bitter personal and political enemies. His term
in the Senate was about to expire and Mr. Benton was his most
formidable competitor. The result of the contest was considered
doubtful, and it was deemed by Mr. Atchison's friends important
to strengthen him in Missouri, and to weaken Mr. Benton.
"How to do this was considered in 'secret session.' It is
thought that only three, besides Mr. Atchison, knew in the early
stages the programme marked out. Subsequently others were made
acquainted with it. The originators of the plan fixed upon were
Mr. Atchison and three other able and distinguished Southern
Senators, men of great influence in the whole country, and espec
ially influential in the South. Only one of these four men is now
living, and it is due to him and those now at rest to say that if
they could have foreseen the consequences which would result
from the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, we believe no one
of them would ever have been instrumental in causing it. Mr.
Pierce had carried for his election all the States of the Union,
save Massachusetts, Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and it
was believed that the measure to repeal the Missouri Compromise
could be carried and cause but little sensation in the country.
This was a grave error. The primary object, therefore which in
duced the initiation of the measure to repeal the Missouri Com
promise was to secure the reelection of Mr. Atchison to the Sen
ate. The means to be employed was the repeal of the Compromise,
in order that the people of Missouri might carry their slaves to
Kansas and there raise hemp.
"The author of the Kansas-Nebraska bill was not Mr. Doug
las but Mr. Atchison. 373
"Early in the session of 1854, Mr. Douglas, Chairman of the
Committee on Territories, introduced a bill to establish a territo-

373 The italics on this page are mine.

THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA BILL 273
rial government in Nebraska, then embracing the present States of
Kansas, Nebraska, and parts of Colorado, and the Territories of
Wyoming and Dakota. No mention was made in it of Kansas.
The bill, as originally introduced, differed but little from kindred
bills which had been passed by Congress. Soon after the intro
duction of the bill Mr. Dixon, a Whig Senator from Kentucky,
and a personal friend of Mr. Atchison, gave notice in the Senate
that when this bill should come up he would offer an amendment
to repeal the Missouri Compromise. This was the first notice
that such action was contemplated. The whole country was taken
by surprise. There were then two Democratic papers published
in Washington: the Union, edited by O. P. Nicholson, the organ
of Mr. Pierce's administration, and the Sentinel, edited by the
gifted B. Tucker. Each of these papers, when Mr. Dixon gave
this notice, denounced it as a Whig movement, intended to be a
firebrand, and having for its object the breaking down of the
Democratic party. The files of these papers will show the facts
as here given. It is certain that neither of these editors was at
the time in the secret.
"Not long after the notice given by Mr. Dixon, Mr. Douglas
moved in the Senate to have the Nebraska bill recommitted, which
was done. Again, a little later he reported the Kansas-Nebraska
bill for establishing two territorial governments. But before this
was done he was made to believe that it w^ould be a very popular
movement in the South and contribute largely to his nomination
for the Presidency in 1856. It is doubtful whether he ever knew
the real object to be attained by the repeal. The President was
also consulted and was impressed with the idea that if he made it
an administration measure it would give him additional strength
in the South, and greatly help him to a renomination in 1856.
The P.resident laid the subject before his Cabinet, then composed
of Secretaries Marcy, Guthrie, Jefferson Davis, Campbell, Cush-
ing, Dobbin and McClelland, and all consented that it should
be made an administration measure. Mr. Marcy, who consented
reluctantly, was not very cordial in its support." 374
374 The following passage, occurring in a letter from the late Presi
dent George W. Atherton of the Pennsylvania State College, dated August
19, 1904, is of some interest, in connection with these last statements of

274 APPENDIX D
Then follows a sketch of the political events en
suing, including a brief outline of the Kansas trou
bles, down to the outbreak of the War, concluding
with this summary:
"This sketch has been written at the request of friends and
to supply a missing link in the history of the past. It has been
written in no sectional spirit, neither to wound the feelings of any
now living nor to disturb the ashes of the dead. The writer has
outlived all bitterness and unkind feeling toward any party or
person on earth.
"From these facts, as herein given, the following conclusions
are warranted :
"First: — That the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was
not called for by the South at the time it was repealed, the bill
being offered by a Northern man who was its ostensible author.

Parker: "With regard to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, I must
confine myself to the briefest possible statement. The impression which
was publicly given out at the time was that since a Northern man pro
posed the repeal, the Southern leaders and Southern people could not gra
ciously refuse to assent to it, while it would have been a very different
thing (said they) if the South had proposed it. The fact is on the con
trary, that the South proposed and insisted on it, and selected Senator
Douglas as their fitting instrument, on account of his strength in the
North, and they counted for success upon his well-known ambition to
secure the vote of the South for the Presidency. Douglas refused to under
take the matter unless it should be made an iron-clad 'administration
measure.' The President for a long time resisted the importunities of the
Southem leaders, but was able at length to secure that assurance for Doug
las and he then undertook the work.
"My informant as to the above was the Hon. Charles J. Faulkner,
who was then in Congress, and was at the outbreak of the Rebellion our
minister to France. After the close of the War, he was a member of the
United States Senate from West Virginia. I have never had an oppor
tunity to follow up his statements, but they were unequivocal and vigorous,
and my own recollection, although the conversation took place nearly thir
ty years ago, cannot be at fault." Correspondence with Senator Faulk
ner's son, Hon. Charles J. Faulkner, Washington, D. C, has failed to bring
to light anything of value in this connection. "Judge Price always told
me that the South used Douglas." (Mr. Wm. E. Connelley in a state
ment to the author.) See Foote's Casket of Reminiscences, 193.

THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA BILL 275
"Second: — That the primary object of the Repeal was to
politically strengthen one man and to weaken another.
"Third: — That the South contended for a principle which
had it been established, would have been of no political benefit to
it or to the cause of slavery : i . Because slavery could never have
been established north of 36° 30'; 2. Because there was open to
slavery south of 36° 30', in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missis
sippi, Florida and Alabama, unoccupied lands sufficient to employ
all the slaves in the United States, and their increase for at least
one hundred years to come." 375

375 It must be admitted that the value of Colonel Parker's testimony
would be enhanced very materially if he had stated precisely the position
he held in 1854 which enabled him to "know many facts and incidents
connected with this bill which were not accessible to the public, or even
to the press of the country," and particularly if his correspondence sus
taining and fully verifying every statement could be found.
With the view to discover, if possible, this important fact in Parker's
career, I have corresponded with a large number of individuals, including
Mrs. R. E. Wynne, daughter of Col. Parker, Wm. G. Stannard of the
Virginia Historical Society, John S. Wise, Esq., John Goode, Esq., Hon.
John A. Kasson, Prof. Wm. E. Dodd, Judge T. R. B. Wright of Tappa
hannock, Va., and the late Hon. A. R. Spofford. Biographical dictionaries
and Congressional Directories have also been consulted but no information
has been obtained more definite than that which Parker himself gives. I
suspect that Parker was the secretary or clerk of some congressional commit
tee, but this, of course, is mere conjecture and based only upon the fact that
Parker was secretary of the Judiciary Committee of the House the year
after the Kansas-Nebraska bill was passed.

APPENDIX E
Atchison's Claims and Douglas's T)enials
In the Introduction it was stated that Senator
Atchison on dififerent occasions publicly claimed the
credit of originating the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise and that it was mainly through his ef
forts that Mr. Douglas was induced to assume charge
of the measure in Congress. The first of these oc
casions was in a speech delivered at Atchison in Kan
sas Territory, a few months after the passage of the
Kansas-Nebraska bill. ^''^ Of this speech there are
two contemporary accounts. The earlier of them
appeared in the New York Tribune, October lo,
1854, being copied into that paper from the Park
ville (Mo.) Luminary of September 26, where it was
first published as told by an eye-witness. The later
account was written by a correspondent of the Tri
bune in May, 1855, "'' and appeared in the Tribune,
on the fourth of June, 1855. Since the later account
in some respects logically precedes the earlier, it will
be quoted first.
376 September 20, 1854.
377 Dated May 28, 1855. The author of this letter was the Rev.
Frederick Starr, author of the Letters io the People published in 1853
over the signature, "Lynceus." An interesting manuscript letter is attached
to the copy of this pamphlet in the Harvard University Library, telling
of the way in which the pamphlet came to be published and the excite
ment which it caused in western Missouri at the time. See also an edito
rial in the Missouri Republican, December 30, 1853.

ATCHISON AND DOUGLAS 277
"St. Louis, Monday, "May 28, 1855.
"Among all the letters in the Tribune from Kansas and its
neighborhood, I do not recollect anywhere to have seen the true
reason stated why the Parkville Luminary was destroyed and its
proprietors presented with the alternative of flight or violence. 378
Let me briefly disclose it. One warm day last summer a large
crowd had assembled at the town site of Atchison in Kansas to
attend a sale of lots. 'Dave' 379 himself was there, and as there
was much whiskey and many friends, he got 'glorious' a little
earlier in the day than usual. So with much spitting on his shirt
and making himself more nasty than common the Vice-President
delivered himself something after this wise:
" 'Gentlemen, you make a d — d fuss about Douglas, but
Douglas don't deserve the credit of this Nebraska bill. I told
Douglas to introduce it. I originated it. I got Pience committed
to it, and all the glory belongs to me. All the South went for it,
all to a man but Bell and Houston, and who are they? Mere
nobodies, no influence, nobody cares for them.'
"It happened that a young man from Parkville was present,
a friend of Atchison, by the way. When he came home he was
sounding Atchison's praises and repeating what he had said. Pat
terson of the Luminary got him to write down the exact words
of the Vice-President, and the next number contained a verbatim
report of portions of his conversation. By this time some of
Dave's friends were sober, if he was not. There was trouble in
the camp. The Platte Argus, the Atchison organ, came out with
a flat denial of the language. The Parkville young man replied
over his own initials, that he heard and reported the words exact
ly as they were published, and whoever should deny them was a
liar, intimating his readiness to maintain the same against all
comers. Meantime a chivalrous nephew of John Bell residing
in St. Louis had seen the report of Atchison's language in the
Luminary, and had written him requiring a categorical answer to

378 This occurred April 14, 1855. A different cause for the destruc
tion of the Luminary is given in Paxton's Annals, 199.
379 David R. Atchison.

278 APPENDIX E
the question whether he had used the language imputed to him
concerning his uncle. The tone of the letter was strongly sug
gestive of 'the usual satisfaction.' Dave evidently thought his
three hundred pounds of flesh too good a mark for a pistol ball,
and he accordingly replied to the nephew that he had the most
distinguished consideration for his uncle and never said such a
word about him, if he had said anything that the lying scoun
drels had tortured into what they published, he begged that it
might be passed by, as he was 'in liquor at the time.' And thus
the Vice-President escaped the vexation of personal responsibility
for his language. Drunkenness is not usually regarded as a valid
plea for a lawyer to make in behalf of a client, but it seems very
good for a Vice-President.
"But the mischief was done, notwithstanding. Douglas
looked glum about his stolen thunder. Bell and Houston were
not disposed to any special affability toward the President of the
Senate. So he sent his resignation and stayed away two or three
weeks after the meeting of Congress. 380 Judge with what bitter
hatred he regarded the Luminary, and when he could sway the
mob power, how eagerly he employed it to wreak his private
vengeance. Veritas."
The other and earlier of the two accounts of this
speech at Atchison is as follows :
"Gen. Atchison mounted an old wagon and made a speech.
He commenced by alluding to the beautiful country which was
now beginning to be settled, to some of the circumstances under
which a territorial government was organized, and in the course
of his remarks mentioned how Douglas came to introduce the
Nebraska bill with the repeal clause in it.
"Senator Atchison said that for himself, he is entirely devoted
to the interests of the South, and that he would sacrifice everything
but his hope of heaven to advance her welfare. He thought the
Missouri Compromise ought to be repealed, he had pledged him-
380 Atchison did not resign in so many words, but wrote a letter from
Platte City, Mo., November 11, 1854, which was evidently interpreted
by the Senate as a resignation. At any rate the Senate immediately pro
ceeded to elect a president pro tempore. The letter is printed in Cong.
Globe, xxx, I.

ATCHISON AND DOUGLAS 279
self in his public addresses to vote for no territorial organization
that would not annul it, and with this feeling in his heart, he
desired to be chairman of the Committee on Territories when the
bill was to be introduced. With this object in view, he had a
private interview with Mr. Douglas and informed him of what he
desired, the introduction of a bill for Nebraska like what he had
promised to vote for,^^^ and that he would like to be chairman
of the Committee on Territories in order to introduce such a
measure, and if he could get that position he would immediately
resign as Speaker [sic] of the Senate. Judge Douglas requested
twenty-four hours to consider the matter, and said if, at the expi
ration of that time he could not introduce such a bill as he (Mr.
Atchison) proposed which would at the same time accord with his
own sense of right and justice to the South, he would resign as the
chairman of the territorial committee in Democratic caucus, and
exert his influence to get him (Atchison) appointed. At the ex
piration of the given time Senator Douglas signified his intention
to report such a bill as had been spoken of. ^^^
"Gen. Atchison next spoke of those who had supported and
those who had opposed the bill in the Senate, and remarked that
Northern Democrats came up nobly to the work but that North-

381 The italics are mine. See in this connection, Holloway's History
of Kansas, 97-98 ; and Spring's Kansas, 24-25.
382 The speech of Atchison on this occasion is quoted by Jehu Baker
in his speech at Belleville, 111., October 18, r854. The speaker added this
comment: "He [Atchison] there reveals the secret history of the repeal of
the Missouri Compromise  Here we have it. Here we see Mr.
Douglas taken aback by the proposal of Mr. Atchison, and requiring twen
ty-four hours to consider whether he can venture to make this leap! How
perfectly irreconcilable is this with what Mr. Douglas has since insisted
upon with so much pertinacity — that in urging the repeal of the Mis
souri Compromise he was, like a good patriot, obeying the solemn behests
of the legislation of 1850! He had rested under that solemn patriotic
obligation for three years without knowing it! Senator Atchison's sug
gestion quickens his conscience, and after twenty-four hours' reflection, he
is enabled to hear a voice as it were, coming forth from the legislative
scrolls of 1850, and bidding him, in the name of liberty, to strike down the
prohibition of slavery in Kansas and Nebraska! Let thoughtful men pon
der these things in the love of truth." — The IFeekly Democratic Press
(Chicago), November 11, 1854.

28o APPENDIX E
ern Whigs had proved recreant to the cause of justice and right.
Southern men, he said, acted as they should have done, with, he
was sorry to say, two exceptions. (A voice in the crowd here
called out, 'Bell and Houston.') Yes, he said, these were the
men, one Whig and one Democrat, both aspirants for the Pres
idency. But poor miserable devils, they had made a false step,
and he might say now he (Atchison) had a fairer chance for that
high honor than either of them. The American people loved
honesty and could appreciate the acts of a man who openly and
above board voted according to the will of his constituents, with
out regard to political favor.
"Senator Atchison next alluded to the slavery question, as it
is now being agitated in our community, and closed by expressing
his profound contempt for abolitionists and their machinations,
and said that if he had his way he would hang every one that
dared show his face here. In referring, however, to Northern
men settling in Kansas Territory, he said he knew there were
sensible, honest, right-feeling men among them, who would be as
far from stealing a negro, as a Southern man would, and his re
marks applied only to avowed abolitionists. Such is a glance at
some of the points in Senator Atchison's speech."
The fact that these assertions of authorship were
made when Senator Atchison was, to all appearances,
"under the influence of the invisible spirit of
wine" ^^^ has caused previous writers to discount their
importance. If, however, Mr. Atchison induced
Mr. Douglas to champion the Repeal, the latter no
doubt insisted, as a condition precedent, that Atchison
should agree not to claim publicly the credit of orig
inating the plan of Repeal. Mr. Douglas would
naturally wish to receive the entire public credit for
the affair in view of its possible effect in attracting to
himself political support. It would also be a part of
the understanding that the agreement should be kept

383 The quoted phrase is Mr. Rhodes's.

ATCHISON AND DOUGLAS 28 1
secret: otherwise it is difficult to see how Douglas
could hope to profit by the course he pursued. Now
it is a common occurrence for men in their cups to
become loquacious and to publish secrets the revela
tion of which often leads to unpleasant complications.
No one thinks of rejecting in toto statements made
under such circumstances. The fact that Mr. Atchi
son may have been intoxicated is not of itself suffi
cient to brand his assertions as false.
There is no evidence that Senator Atchison was
intoxicated when he delivered a speech at Platte
City, Missouri, in February, 1856. On this occasion
he made a much more guarded declaration of his
part in the Repeal; yet the declaration by no means
constitutes any denial of his previous claim. In
stead, it is a most unequivocal assertion that he had
not only been ardently in favor of the Repeal but also
a prominent agent in accomplishing it. The follow
ing passage from this speech is pertinent: ^^'*
"I now wish to review my course on the Kansas-Nebraska
bill. When the subject was first introduced, you know I opposed
it. I plainly saw, then, all the difficulties that would and have
attended it. I told you then that it would be of no benefit to you.
I told you it would be injurious to the commerce of the frontier
counties; that the trade would go West with increase of popula
tion. But meetings were held, resolutions were passed, declaring
it was your wish to open that Territory, and I, being a true Dem
ocrat promised to go for it on one condition, and that was, that
the Missouri Compromise, so-called, — the Missouri restriction,
properly called — be repealed. I addressed the people here in
this court house, at Parkville, at Westport, in fact, all over the
State, and told them that if the Compromise was repealed, I would

384 Quoted in the N. Y. Times, February 25, 1856. See also Rev. Pol.
Action, 74-75.

282 APPENDIX E
go for a bill to organize the Territory, and in a speech at Inde
pendence, I told the people that, unless that restriction was re
pealed, I would see them damned before I would go for it. That
was the English of it. Well, it was done. I do not say that I
did it, but / was a prominent agent." 385
A little more than two months after Senator
Atchison's speech at Platte City, and nineteen months
after the speech at Atchison, Kansas, Senator Doug
las publicly made what is usually interpreted as a
complete denial of the truth of the statements refer
ring to himself contained in these reports of Senator
Atchison's speech in Atchison, Kansas.
This denial occurred in the course of a debate in
the Senate upon the reception of the Kansas legisla
tive petition in April, 1856. ^^^ In order that the en
tire situation may be before the reader, the remarks
preceding and following the denial of Mr. Douglas
are given quite fully.
"Mr. Wilson [of Massachusetts] : But that bill [the Ne
braska bill of the 32d Congress] was defeated. David R. Atch
ison, a man eulogized here for his thousand virtues, went home to
Missouri; and in the summer of 1853 there was organized in
western Missouri, secret lodges, sworn and pledged to carry slavery
into Kansas, in spite of that prohibition of 1820. These secret
lodges knew that the time had come to settle those rich lands in
Kansas and Nebraska, and they resolved to plant slavery there.
These secret societies were organized under the leadership of the
then President of the Senate, the man who has been and who is this
day the chieftain of the Border Ruffian Democracy, under whom
the Senator from Illinois and the chiefs at the other end of the
avenue are mere lieutenants.
"General Atchison came here in December, 1853. If we

385 The italics are mine.
386 April 14, 1856. — Cong. Globe, ist Sess., 34th Cong., Appendix, 390
ff. Mr. Atchison was not a member of the Senate at this time.

ATCHISON AND DOUGLAS 283
can rely upon his own statements, made to a public meeting in
Atchison, Kansas, published in the St. Louis papers, and never
denied by him, to my knowledge, he submitted the proposition to
the Senator from Illinois, to bring in a bill to repeal the Missouri
Compromise, or allow him to resign the Presidency of the Senate
and take the chairmanship of the Committee on Territories. He
boasted in Atchison, Kansas, that he was the leader in that repeal ;
that the Senator from Illinois took time to consider his proposition,
and consented to bring in a repealing bill. The Senator from
Illinois followed the lead of this great chieftain, whom the Ad
ministration and the border ruffians alike follow today; for he is
their guide, their leader and their chieftain. That measure was
carried through Congress; and then, before any man from New
England entered Kansas, it was resolved by members of the Blue
Lodges of Missouri, that they should be removed out of that
Territory 
"Mr. Douglas. The Senator from Massachusetts has re
ferred to that stale Abolition libel that Senator Atchison said he
had given me twenty-four hours to say whether I would bring
in the Nebraska bill, or resign to him the chairmanship of the
Committee on Territories. That is a vile Abolition libel. Gen.
Atchison has on more than one occasion denounced it as a libel. I
thus brand it here as being without the shadow of a truth. You
know, Mr. President [referring to Mr. Bright of Indiana in the
Chair], that that bill was prepared before any Southern man was
consulted; and that you, together with another northwestern Sena
tor, were the first who were consulted on the subject. Then, af
ter you had endorsed it, as I take pleasure in saying that you did,
promptly and fearlessly, we consulted our Southern friends. 387 I
trust, therefore, that I have put an end to that foul slander, in
vented for partisan and malicious purposes, and which has been
repeated so often, and so widespread over the whole country.
"The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] has been repre
sented as being the author of the bill, and the man who dragooned
me into bringing forward that bill. The New York Evening
Post, which the Senator from Massachusetts quotes with so much

387 The italics are mine.

284 APPENDIX E
admiration, has said a hundred times that 'Mr. Toombs of Geor
gia, was -the man that stood over Mr. Douglas, and forced him
to bring it in,' when the Senator from Georgia knows that, up to
that time, he had never planted his foot in the Senate, and he did
not arrive in the City until after the bill was prepared and intro
duced. "Mr. Toombs. That is true.
"Mr. Douglas. He was not here, and never set eyes on me
nor I on him, nor exchanged a word with me, directly or indi
rectly, until the thing was done, and he came here to engage in
fighting the great battle. So it is with these other things. I have
failed to notice them before, for the reason that I had such a con
tempt for this system of making side-issues. Heretofore I have
not noticed such charges; but when they are thrust in my face in
the Senate, I feel it to be my duty to repel them, on the supposi
tion that they have acquired dignity enough by being repeated here
to justify me in noticing them. I am not in the habit of noticing
the many misrepresentations and assaults which are made on me.
I am willing to trust my character and reputation on the result of
the great principles involved, and upon the judgment that shall be
pronounced on them when passion shall have passed away, and the
sober reason of the country shall have returned.
"Mr. Wilson. Mr. President, a few words in reply to the
Senator from Illinois. He closes his remarks by assuring the Sen
ate that General Atchison never made the declaration attributed
to him. That Atchison did make a speech at the town of Atchi
son, Kansas, in which he claimed in substance to be the author of
the proposition for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, I do
not entertain a doubt. I have conversed with gentlemen whose
veracity I cannot question, who heard his speech on that occasion,
and these gentlemen assure me that the published accounts of his
speech are substantially correct. 387 The Parkville Luminary , pub
lished at that time in Missouri, stated that Atchison mounted an
old wagon and made a speech. [Here follows the substance of
the account as quoted above from the New York Tribune^ 
The precise and exact words used in regard to the Senator from
Illinois may not be as represented; but that Atchison claimed that

ATCHISON AND DOUGLAS 285
honor, and claims it still, is well known by hundreds and thousands
of men in the country. 387
"Mr. Rusk (of Texas). Will the Senator allow me to cor
rect him in one declaration?
"Mr. Wilson. Yes, Sir, most cheerfully.
"Mr. Rusk. The Senator has made a declaration in regard
to my colleague, which, in his absence, I desire to correct. He
says that Gen. Atchison made a speech, in which he denounced
my colleague. That is a mistake. There was a false or erroneous
report in a newspaper purporting to be what Gen. Atchison had
said, that did reflect on my colleague, and the Senator from Ten
nessee. General Atchison as soon as he saw the erroneous report
of his speech, wrote a letter promptly correcting it, and stating
what he did say, in which there was no denunciation of the Sen
ator from Tennessee (Mr. Bell) or of my colleague. I have
known Gen. Atchison for a long time, and I am sure he would
not state what was not true. He told me that he had made no
such charges against them; he had previously sent me a paper con
taining the correction of the errors in the false report of his
speech, made by some one, no doubt, for the purpose of raising
mischief  "
Here are two apparently contradictory state
ments regarding the authorship of the Repeal; but
the contradiction is more apparent than real.
Senator Douglas was an adept in all the wiles
and arts of the stump speaker, the rough and ready
debater, and when he felt himself getting into deep
water he did not hesitate to resort to quibbles. It is
not impossible or difficult to regard this whole denial
as partly a quibble and partly an evasion, and cer
tainly if there was any truth in Atchison's claim to
authorship, there was a sufficient motive to induce
Douglas to resort to this sort of tactics.
In the first place, it is to be observed that in his
387 The italics are mine.

286 APPENDIX E
denial Douglas stigmatizes as a "stale abolition li
bel" not the entire story rehearsed by Senator Wil
son, but merely that portion of the story which refers
to Atchison's peremptory demand and allowance of
twenty-four hours. It is very improbable that Atch
ison presented the idea of the Repeal to Douglas in
any such imperious and untactful manner. It is to
tally discordant with what we know of Atchison's
tactics as a politician. Douglas's denial in this par
ticular goes merely to the form of Atchison's claim
and leaves the substance wholly unchallenged.
In the second place it is not impossible to re
gard Douglas's use of the word "Southern" as a quib
ble, when he declared that the bill was prepared
"before any Southern man was consulted." It is
safe to say that Missouri was spoken of as a south
ern. State and her Senators referred to as southern
Senators in Congressional debates only when the sub
ject of slavery was under discussion. In all other
connections, Missouri was regarded and mentioned
as a western State. Atchison himself spoke of the
Kansas-Nebraska bill as a "western measure," and
as such it was expected that Missouri would profit by
it. He even spoke of Missouri as a "Northwestern"
State. ^^^ Benton was constantly referring to Mis
souri as a western State. It may be that Douglas
purposely used the word "Southern" with the mental
reservation that he would call Missouri a western
State. If so, then there was no real denial of Atch
ison's claim, although the effect of a denial was pro
duced and intended, especially in the minds of free-

ass

Cong. Globe, xxxi, 301.

ATCHISON AND DOUGLAS 287
soil Senators who probably thought of Missouri more
often as a southern than a western State. ^^'
Another trick of the wily debater is to get off
from dangerous and on to firm ground as quickly as
possible. One cannot fail to be impressed with the
quickness with which Douglas passes from all direct
reference to the Atchison story, a matter of the most
serious importance to him, and therefore, if worth
noticing at all, demanding a more complete refuta
tion than he gave it, to a point wholly unconnected
with anything that Senator Wilson had said, namely,
to the allegation that Senator Toombs of Georgia,
who was then present in the Senate, had "dragooned"
him into bringing forward this bill. Upon a denial
of this interference or intervention, Douglas could
take stand and feel the ground firm beneath him, and
389 Furthermore, Douglas maj- have stated the literal truth when he
said that the bill was prepared before any Southern man was "consulted."
The primar>- meaning of the word consult is "to apply to for direction or
information, ask the advice of." (Standard Dictionary.) Now if Douglas
used the word consult consciously in its primary sense, his statement
probably was literally true, and produced, as he intended it should pro
duce, the effect of a denial of the Atchison story, whereas in fact it may
have been no contradiction at all. There is little probability- that Douglas
did apply to Atchison for direction or information or advice before tlie
bill was drafted, but that does not preclude the possibility- and probabilir\-
tliat Atchison first sought out Douglas and suggested that he introduce the
repealing measure.
Similarly, I regard Douglas's declaration of February 23, 1S55, that
the bill "was written by myself, at my own house, with no man present,"
as a quibble. (Cong. Globe, xxxi, 216.) Stenographers and private secre
taries were not common in those da>-s, and Douglas may have done the
clerical work himself. Douglas said nothing at that time which directly
contradicts the Atchison storv'. Mrs. Stowe's account of her impressions of
Mr. Douglas as a debater, written a few daj^s after the denial of April 14,
1856, is interesting in this connection and tends to support my interpreta
tion of these denials. Mrs. Stowe's impressions appeared in the New York
Independent, May i, 1856. Summarized in Rhodes's Hist, of U. S., ii, 128.

288 APPENDIX E
at the same time detract attention from the real and
most serious claim to authorship of the Repeal. ^"'

390 Before we leave Atchison's direct assertions of authorship, the fol
lowing may be noted. In an Illustrated History of Missouri (St. Louis and
Cincinnati, 1876), 466, of which Walter B. Davis and Daniel S. Durrie
were the authors, is found the following statement in the course of a brief
biographical sketch of Senator Atchison:
"Mr. Atchison became specially prominent in the legislation for the
organization of the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and claims to have
originated the clause in ihe bill repealing the Missouri Compromise  "
In a History of Kansas (Lafayette, Ind., 1868) by John N. HoUoway
is to be found a brief but circumstantial account of the interest felt by the
people of western Missouri in the repeal of the Compromise and an ac
count of Atchison's activity in the matter.

APPENDIX F
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. MANUSCRIPT MATERIALS
Very little material for this book has been drawn
from manuscript sources. I have made no small ef
fort to discover such material and my efforts have
been efficiently supplemented by those of Professor
Charles H. Hull of Cornell University. The results
of our combined efforts have been almost wholly
negative. But even such results are not without some
value and perhaps should be summarized here.
I have had access to the Garrison papers in the
Boston Public Library, to the Sumner papers in the
Library of Harvard University; and to the papers
of President Pierce, until recently in the possession of
his nephew, Hon. Kirk D. Pierce of Hillsboro, N. H.,
since transferred to the Library of Congress. Such
of the Pierce papers as are of historical value have
been printed in the American Historical Revicxc. In
none of these collections was any material found
bearing upon the origin of the Repeal. Access has
also been had to the Chase Correspondence in the Li
brary of Congress, since published by the American
Historical Association; but very little was found of
value in this investigation. The same is true of the
papers of Colonel John A. Parker of Virginia.
An extensive correspondence has failed to bring

290 APPENDIX F
to light any unpublished papers of Senator Douglas,
Senator Bright of Indiana, Senator Hunter of Vir
ginia, Senator Dodge of Iowa, Senator Geyer of Mis
souri, Colonel Benton, James S. Green of Missouri,
and Senator Atchison. Regarding the papers of
Senator Atchison, it is stated in The History
of Clinton County, Missouri (St. Joseph, Mo.,
1881) that Senator Atchison's "valuable library
and collection of manuscripts" was totally de
stroyed by the fire, February 2, 1870, which de
stroyed his residence. "The General in speaking of
his loss, seemed less to regret the loss of his spacious
mansion than the burning of his extensive library and
valuable records of his opinions and observations
during the long period of his service in the Senate of
the United States." (Pt. ii, 182.)
Mr. William E. Connelley of Topeka, Kansas,
an acknowledged authority on early Kansas history,
informs me that "Atchison wrote a history of the Re
peal of the Missouri Compromise and the Troubles
in Kansas. He wrote it after he returned from Tex
as, where he was during the Civil War. This work,
in manuscript, was destroyed by the accidental burn
ing of the residence of General Atchison shortly be
fore his death."
Papers of Governor Trusten Polk and Francis
P. Blair, Jr., both of Missouri, are known to be in
existence; but I have been unable to ascertain the
nature of their contents.
II. GENERAL HISTORIES
Burgess, J. W. The Middle Period, 181 7-1858. New York,
1897-

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 29 1
HoLST, H. E. VON. Constitutional and Political History of the
United States. Translated by John J. Lalor, and others. 8
vols. Chicago, 1877-92.
Rhodes, J. F. History of the United States from the Com
promise of 1850. 7 vols. New York, 1893-1906.
ScHouLER, James. History of the United States of America
under the Constitution. 6 vols. Revised edition, New York,
1899-
Smith, Theodore C. Parties and Slavery, 1850-1859. New
York, 1906.
Wilson, Henry. History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave
Power in America. 3 vols. Boston, 1872-77.
Wilson, Woodrow. Division and Reunion. New York, 1901.
 . A History of the American People. 5 vols. New
York, 1902. III. STATE AND LOCAL HISTORIES
Carr, Lucien. Missouri, a Bone of Contention. Boston, 1888.
The best history of Missouri. The treatment, however, of Missouri
politics between 1844 and 1854 is too summary to be of the greatest
value. Chapters 10 and ir on the annexation of Texas and the
Jackson Resolutions are the most useful.
Clay and Platte Counties, Missouri; History of. Anony
mous. St. Louis, 1885.
Gives the Jackson Resolutions, and Benton's "Appeal" letter of
May 9, 1849. Otherwise of no value. 391
Davis, Walter B. and Daniel S. Durrie. An Illustrated
History of Missouri. St. Louis and Cincinnati, 1876.
Of value solely for the brief sketch of Senator Atchison.
Greene County, Missouri; History of. Anonymous. St.
Louis, 1883.
Gives the Jackson Resolutions, and a brief account of Benton's
Springfield speech. Otherwise of little value.
Goodspeed, Weston A. Editor-in-Chief. The Provinces and
the States. A History of the Province of Louisiana under
France, and Spain, and of the Territories and States of the

391 For ihe purposes of this work is, of course, to be understood in all
these comments.

292 APPENDIX F
United States formed therefrom. 7 vols. Madison, Wis.,
1904. Volume 4, edited by C. M. Harvey, deals briefly with Missouri
politics, 1844-1854.
HoLLOWAY, John N. History of Kansas from the First Ex
ploration of the Mississippi Valley to its Admission into the
Union. Lafayette, Ind., 1868.
Contains a little contemporary evidence that Senator Atchison was
the originator of the Repeal, and describes conditions in westem Mis
souri at the time of the Repeal.
Morton, J. S. The Illustrated History of Nebraska. Lincoln,
1905. H. D. Johnson's claim that economic considerations determined the
creation of two Territories is accepted and elaborated.
Phillips, William. The Conquest of Kansas by Missouri and
her Allies. Boston, 1856.
Gives interesting sidelights on conditions in western Missouri and
Kansas. The author was the special correspondent of the New York
Tribune.
Paxton, William M. Annals of Platte County, Missouri.
Kansas City, Mo., 1897.
Platte County lay on the northwestern border of the State and was
one of the pro-slavery strongholds. The great diligence of the author
has brought together in this volume a vast amount of information upon
a great variety of subjects of local interest
Spring, Leverett W. Kansas. Boston, 1885.
Excellent on the later history of Kansas, but quite inadequate in
dealing with the genesis of the Kansas-Nebraska bill.
Switzler, W. F. and others. Switzler's Illustrated History of
Missouri. St. Louis, 1879.
Colonel Switzler's knowledge of Missouri history was encyclopedic.
He was a Whig, and active in politics at the time of Benton's "Ap
peal." His work contains much that is valuable for these years but
on the campaign of 1853 it is surprisingly meager.
Viles, Jonas S. The Story of the State. [In a volume entitled
The State of Missouri: An Autobiography, edited by Walter
Williams]. Columbia, Mo., 1904.
An excellent, though necessarily brief, summary of the political
history of Missouri.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 293
IV. BIOGRAPHIES
Brown, William Garrot. Stephen Arnold Douglas. Boston
1892. '
A very brief but excellent sketch of Douglas's public life
Flint, H. M. Life of Stephen A. Douglas. By a Member of
the Western Bar. New York, i860.
A campaign biography with the usual infirmities of that class of
works. Of very little value.
Harding, S. B. Life of George R. Smith, Founder of Sedalia,
Missouri. Sedalia, Mo., 1904.
Gives an account of the last few ballots when Geyer was elected
to succeed Benton in the Senate in 1851, found in a letter written by
a member of the Legislature.
Johnson, Allen. Stephen A. Douglas: A Study in American
Politics. New York, 1908.
This is the best biography of Douglas, and in most respects is an ad
mirable work. The discussion, however, of Douglas's connection with
the Repeal is regrettably inadequate. Except for Douglas's letter of
November 11, 1853, to Walker and Lanphier, the work contributes
very little to our knowledge of this important episode in Douglas's
career.
Meigs, W. M. Life of Thomas Hart Benton. Philadelphia,
1904. The best biography of Benton. Contains much valuable matter
relating to Benton's retirement from the Senate.
Roosevelt, Theodore. Thomas Hart Benton. Boston, 1887.
Of very slight value.
Rogers, Joseph M. Thomas H. Benton. Philadelphia.
A very readable biography. Of more value as a character sketch
than as a contribution to political history.
Sheahan, J. W. Life of Stephen A. Douglas. New York, i860.
Another campaign biography of. very little value.
V. PUBLICATIONS OF HISTORICAL SOCIETIES
Abel, Miss A. H. Indian Reservations in Kansas and the Ex
tinguishment of their Title. In Kansas Historical Society's
Transactions, viii. (1903-04).
Of value in connection with the Benton-Atchison controversy over
the legality of immediate settlement in Nebraska Territory.

294 APPENDIX F
American Historical Association; Annual Report. 1899,
1902, igo6.
Vol. ii (1899), containing the Correspondence of John C. Calhoun,
contains a few important letters referring to Missouri politics in 1849.
Vol. ii (1902), the Correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, contains a few
allusions to Missouri politics. Vol. i (1906), contains Miss Abel's
Winsor Prize Essay, "The History of Indian Consolidation West of
the Mississippi."
Calhoun, John C. Correspondence of. In the American His
torical Association's Report for 1899, Vol. ii.
Connelley, William E. The First Provisional Constitution
of Kansas. In Kansas Historical Society's Transactions, vi.
1897-1900. An earlier study afterwards elaborated into the author's Provisional
Government of Nebraska.
 . Provisional Government of Nebraska and the Jour
nal of William Walker, Provisional Governor of Nebraska
Territory. Special Publication of the Nebraska State Histor
ical Society's Transactions and Reports, Series II, Vol. iii. 1899.
A most important source for facts and documents relating to the
Wyandott connection with the Nebraska territorial movement.
Haskell, J. G. The Passing of Slavery in Western Missouri.
In Kansas Historical Society's Transactions, vii. 1901-02.
Throws some light on slavery in western Missouri in the period
covered by this investigation.
HiNTON, R. J. The Nationalization of Freedom and the His
torical Place of Kansas therein. In Kansas Historical Society's
Transactions, vi. 1897-1900.
Johnson, Hadley D. How the Kansas-Nebraska Boundary
Line was Established. In Nebraska State Historical Society's
Transactions and Reports, ii. 1887.
An important contribution indicating that economic considerations
rather than slavery interests determined the organization of two Terri
tories in 1854.
Kansas State Historical Society; Transactions of. Vol. vi
(1897-1900), vol. vii (1901-02), vol. viii (1903-04), vol. ix
(1905-06).
Merwin, R. E. History of the Wyandott Indians. In Kansas
Historical Society's Transactions, ix. 1905-06.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 295
Missouri State Historical Society; Proceedings of. 1903.
Short sketches of Benton and Blair occur in this volume.
Nebraska State Historical Society; Transactions and Reports
of. VoL ii. 1887.
Taft, William H. The Kansas-Nebraska Bill and Decoration
Day. In Kansas Historical Society's Transactions, ix. 1905-06.
A Memorial Day address, to which are appended footnotes by
George W. Martin. The footnotes include excerpts from a number
of newspapers, 1853-56, which are of value for their bearing upon
Atchison's connection with the Repeal.
VI. STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
Congressional Directory. 30th Congress (1847-49), 31st
Congress (1849-51), 32d Congress (1851-53), 33d Congress
(1853-55).
Congressional Globe.
Second session, 28th Congress (cited, xiv).
First session, 30th Congress (cited, xviii).
Second session, 30th Congress (cited, xx).
First session, 31st Congress (cited xxi).
Second session, 31st Congress (cited, xxiii).
First session, 32d Congress (cited xxiv).
Second session, 32d Congress (cited, xxvi, xxvii).
First session, 33d Congress (cited, xxviii, xxix).
Second session, 33d Congress (cited, xxxi).
First session, 34th Congress.
Congressional Record. 3d session, 55th Congress, vol. xxxii,
Pt. iii. Remarks of Hon. Champ Clark on Francis P. Blair,
Jr., and Remarks of Hon. A. M. Dockery, quoting Judge
James H. Birch, a contemporary of Benton.
House Executive Documents:
Second session, 28th Congress, vol. i.
First Session, 33d Congress, vol. i, no. i.
House Journal:
First session, 30th Congress.
First session, 31st Congress.
Second session, 32d Congress.
First session, 33d Congress.

296 APPENDIX F
First session, 34th Congress.
House Reports:
First session, 34th Congress, vol. iii, nos. 200, 257.
Second session, 37th Congress, no. 67.
Kansas Report. Report of the Special Committee appointed to
investigate the Troubles in Kansas with the Views of the
Minority. Washington, 1856. House Reports, ist session,
34th Congress, vol. iii, no. 200.
Manypenny, Colonel George W. [Commissioner of Indian
Affairs] Report, November 9, 1853, of his visit to Indians west
of Missouri and Iowa; Report of November 26, 1853, on the
general subject of Indian Relations. House Executive Docu
ments, 1st session, 33d Congress, vol. 1, no. i.
Missouri; Laws of the State of. Passed at the First Session of
the Fourteenth General Assembly, November 16, 1846-Feb-
ruary 16, 1847.
Missouri; Laws of the State of. Passed at the Session of the
Fifteenth General Assembly, December 25, 1848-March 12,
1849.
Missouri House Journal ; 1846-47, 1848-49, 1850-51, 1852-53.
Missouri Senate Journal ; 1846-47, 1848-49, 1850-51, 1852-53.
Poore, Benjamin Perley. The Federal and State Constitu
tions, Colonial Charters and other Organic Laws of the United
States. Second edition. 2 vols. Washington, 1878.
Richardson, J. D. Compilation of the Messages and Papers of
the Presidents (i 789-1 897). 10 vols. Washington, 1896-99.
Senate Journal:
Second session, 28th Congress.
First session, 30th Congress.
First session, 31st Congress.
First session, 32d Congress.
Second session, 32d Congress.
First session, 33d Congress.
Senate Reports; ist session, 33d Congress, vol. i, no. 15.
Wilkins, William. Report of Secretary of War, November
30, 1844. House Executive Documents, 2d session, 28th Con
gress, vol. i.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 297
VII. PAMPHLETS
A Statement of Facts and a few Suggestions in Review of
Political Action in Missouri demonstrating the Right of Ad
mission to the Democratic National Convention of the Dele
gates of the Democratic Party of the State whose Names are
appended hereto, to the Exclusion of their Contestants. 1856.
[n. p.J
This is the case of the anti-Benton faction in the Missouri Democ
racy before the Cincinnati Convention, 1856, protesting against the
seating of the Benton delegation. It contains a good deal of material
bearing upon the dissensions in Missouri after Benton's "Appeal."
Benton, Thomas H. Speech at the Capitol at Jefferson City,
May 26, 1849. St. Louis, 1849.
This and the speech at Fayette are among the best examples of
Benton's peculiar style of stump speaking.
 . Speech at Fayette, Howard County, Missouri, on Satur
day, September i, 1849. Jefferson City, Mo., 1849.
Bowlin, James B. Circular to his Constituents, the Voters
of the First Congressional District, in Missouri. Washington,
D. C, 1850.
Illustrates the confusion wrought in Missouri politics by Benton's
"Appeal."
Douglas, Stephen A. Remarks by Mr. Douglas of Illinois
upon the Resolutions declaring the Compromise Measures to be
a Definitive Adjustment of all Questions growing out of Do
mestic Slavery. Delivered in the Senate of the United States,
December 23, 1851. Washington, 1851.
 . Speech of Senator Douglas at a Public Dinner, In Chi
cago, November 9, 1854. Washington, 1855.
Green, James S. of Missouri. Letter to Messrs. John S. Farish,
John W. Minor, Thomas Roberts, Wesley Burks, and others.
Citizens of Schuyler County, Missouri, [n. p., n. d.]
This letter constitutes perhaps the ablest reply to Benton's "Appeal"
and Jefferson City speech. It is a clear and full presentation of the
case of the Anti-Bentonites in 1849.
Parker, Col. John A. of Virginia. What Led to the War, or
the Secret History of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, with an Intro
ductory Note by Waldorf H. Phillips of New York. New
York, 1880, and Washington, 1886.

298 APPENDIX F
Reprinted from the National Quarterly Review, July, 1880. An
important piece of corroborative evidence of the Missouri origin and
Atchison authorship of the Repeal.
Starr, Rev. Frederick. Letters for the People on the Present
Crisis. [Signed] "Lynceus" [pseud.]. [New York, 1853.]
This pamphlet reflects the views of a northem anti-slavery clergy
man, residing in Missouri, concerning the economic and political con
ditions of Missouri as affected by the institution of slavery. The
letters were published anonymously, but the copy in the Harvard
University Library contains a manuscript letter revealing the identity
of the author and relating some interesting facts about the indignation
which the appearance of these letters caused in Missouri.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS BOOKS
Benton, Thomas H. Thirty Years' View, 1 820-1 850. 2 vols.
New York, 1854-56.
Benton's attack upon Calhoun over the Texas annexation question
is to be found here, but one looks in vain for anything bearing upon
his retirement from the Senate or struggle for restoration. On the
whole it is of very slight value.
CuTTS, James M. A Brief Treatise upon Constitutional and
Party Questions and the History of Political Parties. New
York, 1866.
Of almost no value.
Dixon, Mrs. Archibald. The True History of the Missouri
Compromise and its Repeal. Cincinnati, 1899.
Far from being a "true'' history of the Repeal, it is incomplete,
biased and in other respects unreliable. Of interest mainly for the
part taken by Senator Dixon in the Repeal.
IX. CONTRIBUTIONS TO PERIODICALS
Fagg, j. C. Thomas Hart Benton : The Great Missourian and
his Times reviewed. Missouri Historical Review,! (Oct.).
Harvey, Charles M. Missouri from 1849 to 1861. Missouri
Historical Review, II (Oct.).
Comments briefly upon Missouri politics, 1849-54.
Johnson, Allen. Douglas and Popular Sovereignty. Iowa
Journal of History and Politics, Jan. and July, 1905.
Webster, Sydney. The Responsibility for Secession. Political
Science Quarterly, VIII.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 299
The writer, who was the private secretary of President Pierce,
contends that the Repeal was wholly legislative in its origin, and
endeavors to free the Executive from responsibility.
X. NEWSPAPERS
Albany [N. Y.] Argus, 1853-1854.
Baltimore [Md.] Sun, 1853-1854.
Boston [Mass.] Atlas, 1853.
Boston [Mass.] Journal, 1853.
Charleston [S. C] Courier, 1853-1854.
Cincinnati [Ohio] Inquirer, 1854.
Independent, The [New York], 1856.
Iowa Republican [Iowa City], 1853.
Iowa State Gazette [Burlington], 1853.
Jefferson [Mo.] Examiner, 1853.
Jefferson [Mo.] Inquirer, 1853.
Mississippian and State Gazette [Jackson, Miss.], 1853-1854.
Missouri Republican [St. Louis], 1 853-1 854.
Missouri Sentinel [Columbia], 1853.
National Intelligencer [Washington, D. C], 1853- 1854.
New York [N. Y.] Evening Post, 1853.
New York [N. Y.] Herald, 1853-1854.
New York [N. Y.] Journal of Commerce, 1853-1854.
New York [N. Y.] Times, 1856.
New York [N. Y.] Tribune, 1853-1854-
Niles's National Register [Baltimore, Md.], vols. L^VI,
LXVII (1844-45), LXXII (1847), LXXV (1849).
Platte [City, Mo.] Argus, The Weekly, 1852.
Richmond [Va.] Enquirer, 1853-1854.
St. Louis [Mo.] Intelligencer, 1850.
Washington [D. C] Union, 1853-1854-
Weekly Democratic Press [Chicago, 111.], 1854-1856.
Western Eagle [Cape Girardeau, Mo.], 1849-1851.
Newspapers have been an invaluable source in the preparation of
this book. The Missouri newspapers and the Washington correspondence
of the great eastern papers have been of most value.

Ind

ex

INDEX

Adams, Senator Stephen: 94.
Administration: attitude toward
Benton, 79 note 100, no, in note
155; toward Repeal, 212, 213 ff,
256 ff.
Albany Argus: editorial quoted, 191-
193 and interpretation of, by N. Y.
Evening Post, 192.
Andrew County (Mo.) : Nebraska
meeting in, 164 ff.
Anti-Benton: faction in Missouri
Democracy, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36,
38, 50, 64-65, 67, 71, 112; press
in Missouri, 51 note 54, in;
resolutions, 38, 51 note 54, 64-65.
See also Atchison, Benton, Cal
houn, Douglas, Green, Jackson
Resolutions, Letters, Missouri Pol
itics, Missouri Legislature, and
Price, W. C.
Appeal: Benton's, to the People of
Missouri, 41 ff, 50; effect of, 58-
59. Of the Independent Demo
crats in Congress, 17. See also
Atchison, Benton, Calhoun, Green,
Jackson Resolutions, Letters, and
Missouri Politics.
Appendix: 235 ff.
Armstrong, Rev. J. M. : 85 note 107,
252.
Atchison, David R.: his political ex
tremity in 1854, 22, 131 ff, 141,
202; claims credit for the Repeal,
22, 23, 233, 276 ff, 288 note 390;
desires chairmanship of Commit

tee on Territories, 22, 201, 277 ff;
interview with Douglas, 22, 201,
204; speech at Atchison (Kansas),
22, 276 ff; speech at Platte City
(Mo.), 23, 79 note 100, 281; the
antithesis of Benton, 28, 217;
reelection contested by Benton, 28 ;
position on Texas question, 32 note
27 ; on conspiracy against Ben
ton, 34 note 30; position on slav
ery endorsed, 48 note 48 ; position
on Wilmot Proviso, 52 note 55,
108, 113; mentioned in Liberty
resolutions, 51 note 54; mentioned
in Klippel's letter, 59; speaks in
St. Joseph (Mo.), 59 note 66; at
titude toward Pacific Railroad, 77
ff, 260 note 357; interest in Mis
souri railroads, 77 ; speeches at
Weston, Parkville and Fayette
(Mo.), 74 note 91, 77, 79 note loo,
123, 228, 255 ff, 257; interviews
with Guthrie, 88, 135; opposes
Wyandott territorial movement,
88 ; presents Missouri memorial
on Nebraska, 97; presents Park
ville resolutions, 99; on Missouri's
interest in Nebraska, loi, 102 ff,
136; attitude toward Missouri
Compromise, 104, 108, 113, 135 ff,
2i6 note 303 ; change of attitude
on Nebraska question, 102 ff, 112
ff, 116, 133, 134 ff, 136; charged
with inconsistency by Jefferson
Inquirer, 112 ff, 133; his political

304

INDEX

"stamping-ground," 115; his anti-
Benton letter of 1849, quoted, 112;
opinion on legality of "immediate"
settlement, 119, 123 ff; reply to
Benton's Cole & Monroe County
letters, 123 ff; comment of St.
Louis Evening News, 123 ; writes
to Secretary of the Interior, 124;
Manypenny's letter, 126 ff; views
and pledges concerning Slavery in
Nebraska, 23, 135 ff, 141, 170 note
238, 198, 205, 221, 228, 255 ff, 281 ;
relations with Manypenny, 156;
letter to Missouri Examiner, 156
note 221 ; speech mentioned by
N. Y. Independent, 170 note 238;
relations, with Douglas, 201-202,
221, 277 ff and with the Pierce
Administration, 212-214, 277 ff;
inconspicuous part in Kansas-Ne
braska debate, 215 ff and Clayton
amendment, 215 ff; relation of the
Repeal to his contest with Benton,
220 ff; resolutions of Platte City
meeting, 226 note 319; letter re
viewing campaign of 1853-54, 226
ff, 253 ff; the author of the Re
peal, 229-230, 232, 272 ff; resig
nation as President pro tempore,
278 ; Henry Wilson comment up
on, 282 ff.
Comments on: St. Joseph Ga
zette, 139; Jefferson Inquirer, 140;
Iowa State Gazette, 179; Boston
Atlas, 180; N. Y. Evening Post,
181, 192; N. Y. Journal of Com
merce, 182; Richmond Enquirer,
189, 198; Missouri Republican,
199; Baltimore Sun, 204 ff, 221;
Charleston Courier, 205.
Atchison (Kans.) : Atchison's speech
at, 22, 233, 277 ff.
Atherton, George W. : letter of,
quoted, 274 note 374.

Authorship of the Repeal: 228, 229,
230, 233, 277 ff, 287.
Badger, Senator G. E.: 218.
Baker, John : speech quoted, 280 note
382.
Baltimore Platforms: 15, 65, 139,
140.
Baltimore Sun: quoted, 204 ff, 220.
Barrett, J. Amos: his and A. E.
Sheldon's new explanation of
Douglas's motives, 19 note 8, 238
ff.
Bell, Senator John: 279, 281.
Benjamin, Senator J. P.: 34, 248,
249.
Bennett, H. P.: 177.
Benton, Thomas H. : the antithesis
of Atchison, 28, 217 ; retirement
from Senate, 28-29, 3° not* 20,
35; desires to succeed Atchison,
28; his political extremity in 1854,
28-29, 222 ff; hostility to Calhoun,
27, 29, 39 ff, 42 ff, 47; attitude
of Calhoun, 30-32, 43 ff; last
election to Senate, 33 ; the anti-
Benton party in Mo., 33-34; his
political absolutism, 34; opposi
tion of Judge Price, 35, 248 ff;
spurns Repeal proposal, 35, 248;
assails the Jackson resolutions, 39
ff; his "Appeal to the People of
Missouri," 41 ; his canvass of the
state, 1849, 48 ff, 49 note 49, 58;
effect of, 50; his position on Slav
ery assailed by Green, 53 ff; his
violent language, 56, 57, 58, 68-
69; organizes a separate faction,
56 note 62 ; lack of interest in In
ternal Improvements, 61 note 73 ;
overconfident in campaign of
1850, 62; letter opposing union
with Calhounites, 62-63 i attitude
toward Whigs, 63, 68, 69; inter
pretation of election of 1850, 64

INDEX

305

note 77; effect of his defeat, 66-
67 ; reorganizes his "bolt," 67 ;
opposes factional reconciliation,
1852, 67; denounces State Con
vention, 68; his election as Rep
resentative, 68-69; letter to Boon-
ville Observer, 69 note 86; pro-
jeclsifor Central Highway, 72 ff,
76; his project ridiculed by Atch
ison, 74 note 91 ; Cole County let
ter, 76, 116 ff, 255 ; misrepresents
Atchison, 77, 79 ff, 135; relations
with Pierce's Administration, 79
note 100, no, in note 155, and
slavery agitation among Wyan
dotts, 85 note 107, 251 ; relations
with Guthrie, 85 note 107, 89 note
117; favors Wyandott territorial
movement, 89, 144; candidacy for
Senate, 1853, 109 ff; newspapers
supporting, in; visits western
counties, 112-115; his aggressive
tactics, 115 ff; advocates "imme
diate" occupation of Nebraska,
115 ff, 162 note 228; lack of in
terest in Nebraska, 115, 136;
forces Atchison to act on the de
fensive, 116, 131; letter to Mix,
120; Manypenny's letter, 120;
letter to citizens of Monroe
County, 121, and the Freesoilers,
79 note 100, 254 ff; on Indian
titles in Nebraska, 116 ff, 121 ff;
his map of Nebraska, 120 ff ; effect
of his Nebraska agitation, 130-
131, 159, 162 note 228; mentioned
in Wyandott resolutions, 145-146;
endorsed by Andrew County meet
ing, 165 note 232; effect of Repeal
upon his senatorial prospects, 220
ff, 224; his dilemma in 1854, 222
ff; opposes Kansas-Nebraska bill,
224 ff; defeated for the Senate,
225-226; gubernatorial campaign
of 1856, 226; his position re

viewed by Atchison, 253 ff; men
tioned in Parker's pamphlet, 271
ff. Comments on: Iowa State Ga
zette, 179 ; Richmond Enquirer,
198; Missouri Republican, 199.
Speeches: at Jefferson City
(Mo.), 30 note 21, 31, 32, 40, 42;
at Liberty (Mo.), 51 note 54; at
Fayette (Mo.), 42 note 41; at
Platte City, 49 note 50; at St.
Louis, 50 note 52, 62 note 74; at
St. Joseph, 58 ; at Jackson, Cape
Girardeau County (Mo.), 75-76;
at Kansas City (Mo.), 117 note
164, 253 ff; at Westport, 253, 255;
at Weston, 117 note 164; at Inde
pendence, 117 note 164, 253 ff.
Benton's Map of Nebraska: Benton's
note to Mix, 120; Manypenny to
Benton, 120; Atchison on, 123 ff;
condemned by Manypenny, 128 ;
endorsed by Andrew County meet
ing, 166 note 232.
Bibliography: 290 ff.
Birch, Judge James H. : 38 note 34,
46, 49 note 50, 51 note 54, 58.
Bissell, W. H.: 88.
Blaine, James G. : Tiuenty Years of
Congress, quoted, 52 note 55.
Blair, Francis P., Jr.: 67 note 83,
85 note 107, 173, 251, 260, -290;
speech quoted, 229 ff; letter quot
ed, 202 note 283, 231 note 324.
Bogy, Col. Louis B.: 68.
Boston Atlas: quoted, 167 note 233,
180.
Boston Journal: quoted, 177 note 250.
Boy, W. V. N.: 173, 260.
Bradford, Hon. A. A.: 177.
Breckinridge, John C: 34, 213, 214,
249.
Bright, Senator Jesse D.: 214, 284.
Brown, Aaron V.: 98 note 129.

3o6

INDEX

Brown, B. Gratz: 85 note 107, 173,
251, 260.
Burgess, Prof. J. W. : on Douglas's
motives, 17.
Butler, Senator A. P.: 231.
Cabinet: of President Pierce, 212-
213, 273.
Calhoun, Andrew Pickens: letter of
John C. Calhoun to, quoted, 44
note 45.
Calhoun, John C. : 29, 34; hostility
to Benton, 30-32, 43 ff, and the
annexation of Texas, 30, 31, 32
note 28, 35; his Senate resolutions
of Feb., 1847, 42, 47; connection
with Jackson resolutions, 42 ff;
correspondence quoted, 44 note 45,
59 note 65 ; reply to Benton, 30
note 21, 44 note 45 ; influence upon
Atchison, Hunter, Mason, and
Butler, 230 ff.
Calhounites: in Missouri, 62-63.
Cape Girardeau County: Benton's
speech in, 75-76.
Caruthers, Samuel: 263.
Cass, Senator Lewis: 218.
Cass-Nicholson Letter: 172.
Central National Highway: Ben
ton's project for the, 72 ff, 76.
Charleston Courier: quoted, 205.
Chase, Salmon P.: letter of Klippel
to. 57 ff; proposed route for Pa
cific Railroad, 80; letter to E. S.
Hamlin, quoted, 158 note 224.
Clark, G. L: 147.
Clark, Dr. Monson H. : 176.
Clay, Henry: 31, 136.
Clayton Amendment: to Kansas-Ne
braska bill, 215 ff.
Clemson, Thomas G. : Calhoun's let
ter to, quoted, 59, note 65.
Cole County: Benton's letter to cit
izens of, 76, 116 ff, 256.

Commissioner of Indian Affairs. See
Manypenny.
Committee on Territories: Senate,
Thirty-third Congress, 195 note
272, 199, 200 ff, 203, 204, 205 ff,
220.
Compromise of 1850: 15, 186; estab
lishing a precedent, 21, 190 ff; en
dorsed by Mo. Democratic Con
vention, 67; extreme Southern in
terpretation of, 93 note 125; 188
ff, 190 ff; comment of St. Louis
Intelligencer, 192 note 268 ; Atch
ison's attitude on Slavery in Ne
braska, 139-140; endorsed by St.
Joseph meeting, 168.
Comments: of Charleston Cou
rier, 205 ; of Missouri Republican,
221. Discussed: by Richmond En
quirer, 188 ff; by the Mississip
pian, 190; by Albany Argus, 191
ff; in report of Jan. 4, 1854, 205
ff.
Congress: Nebraska question in
Thirty-third, anticipated, 178 ff,
183; Missouri senatorial fight
transferred to, 29, 141, 195 ff, 198,
199, 205, 215 note 303, 220 ff, 227,
256 ff.
Congressional Globe: inadequate as
a source, 16, 24, 196 ff, 215.
Connelley, Wm. E. : 33 note 29, 34
note 30, 36 note 32, 86 note 108,
89 note 117, 148 note 207, 243 ff.
Council Bluffs (Iowa) : 80, 176, 177.
Curtis, Col. Samuel H.. 177.
Cutts, J. M.: Treatise upon Consti
tutional and Party Questions,
quoted, 163 note 228.
Davis, Jefferson: 34, 248, 273.
Dawes, H. L.: letter of Guthrie to,
83 note 102, 91 note 124.
Dews, I. M.: 177.

INDEX

307

Dixon, Senator Archibald: his
amendment, 207, 211, 223, 273;
letter to Foote, quoted, 210 note
295, 211 note 297; friendly to
Atchison, 273.
Doctrine of Supersedure: 21, 187 ff,
193 ff, 203, 209, 213, 217-218.
Dodge, Senator A. C. : resolution by,
99; introduces Nebraska bill, 100,
195; remarks upon, quoted, 177
note 251; favors two territories,
20S note 292 ; at Council Bluffs,
177-
Douglas, Stephen A.: reputed author
of the Repeal, 16; explanations of
his motives, i6 ff, 237 ff; com
mitted to the Missouri Compro
mise, 20-21 ; resolution not to
speak on Slavery, 21 ; charges of
inconsistency against, 21 ; denial
of Atchison's claim, 23, 282 fi;
indifference to Nebraska, 19, 83
note 103, 94 ff, 98 ; his Nebraska
bills, 95 ff; unconnected with Ne
braska movement in 1853, 183 ff;
European trip, 184; letter to Lan
phier and Walker, 1S3 ff; its sig
nificance, 1S5; and the doctrine of
Supersedure, 187 ff ; report of Jan.
4, 1854, 187, 205 ff, 209 ff; com
pelled to act on the Nebraska
question, 200; speech at III. State
Agricultural Fair, 200 ; relations
with Atchison, 201-202, 221, 277
ff; attitude toward Benton, 20:;,
221; aids anti-Benton faction in
Mo., 202 note 2S3; reports Kan
sas-Nebraska bill, 207 ff; and the
creation of two Territories, 208
note 292 ; and the Pierce Admin
istration, 184 ff, 212 ff, 214; In
terest in Pacific R. R., 184 ff, 237
ff; his quibbling, 285 ff.
Downs, H. P.: 176.
Dusenbur>-, H.: 173, 26a

Easton, L. J.: 167.
Emigration: through Nebraska, 72,
76, 82 note 102, 83 note 103, 170
note 237; to Nebraska, 130-131,
159, 163 note 228.
English, W. G.: 177.
Epithets: 58.
"Fairfax": Washington correspond
ent of the Richmond Enquirer,
197, 198, 268.
Faulkner, Charles J.: 273 note 374.
Fayette (Mo.) : Atchison's speech at,
77, 123, 132 note 183, 134; Ben
ton's speech at, 42 note 41.
Forney, John W. : 268.
Fremont, John C. : explorations, 80.
Geyer, Henry S.: 249, 263; elected
to the Senate to succeed Benton,
66; and A. Guthrie, 88; opposes
Wyandott territorial movement,
88 ; opposition to Nebraska bill in
Thirty-second Congress, 114.
Giddings, Joshua R. : colloquy with
Howe in the House, 93.
Glenwood (Iowa) : 176.
Goodspeed, Weston Arthur: Prov
inces and States, quoted, 27, 52
note 55.
Green, James S. : Blaine's comment
upon, 52 note 55 ; reply to Ben
ton's Appeal, 52 ff ; succeeds Atch
ison in Senate, 226 note 318.
Greenwood, Judge: 177.
Guthrie, Abelard: letters to H. L.
Dawes, 83 note 102, 91 note 124;
opposed to Slavery, 85 note 107;
relations with Benton, 85 note 107,
250-251; letter to Washburn, 87
note 109 ; elected Delegate to Con
gress, S7; renominated to Con
gress, 147, 148 note 207 ; defeated
for Congress, 151 ff, 153 note 215;
inter>'iew with Atchison, 88, 135 ;

3o8

INDEX

letters to Wm. Walker, 88, 90; re
fused a seat by the House, 91 ; his
memorials, 92; Mayall's comment
on, 107; remarks in Wyandott
convention, 146; attacks Many-
penny, 152, 153 note 215; on the
establishment of provisional gov
ernment, 153 note 215 ; letter to
N. Y. Tribune, 153 note 215.
Gwin, Senator W. M. : 80, 199 note
278.
Hall, Willard P.: opposed to Ben
ton, 58 ; his Nebraska territorial
bills, 81 note 101, 90, 92, 99, 165,
168; mentioned in Wyandott res
olutions, 145-146; remarks in
Thirty-second Congress quoted,
241 ff.
Hamilton, Rev. Wm.: 176.
Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad:
77, loi.
Hemp-raising: 115 note 162, 271.
Henn, Bernhart: 176, 177 note 251.
Hepner, George: 177.
Holden, N. B. : 97 note 132.
Holley, C. F.: Benton's letter to, 117
note 164; reports resolutions at
Andrew County meeting, 164; ad
dresses St. Joseph meeting, 167 ff.
Hoist, H. E. von: on Douglas's mo
tives, 16.
House of Representatives: vote ana
lyzed, 239 ff.
Houston, G. S. : 92.
Houston, Gen. Sam: 278, 280.
Howe, T. M.: colloquy with Gidd
ings in the House, 93.
Hughes, Roland: quoted, 34 note 30.
Hunter, Senator Robert M. T.: 212,
213, 214, 230 ff.
Hutawa, Jules: 128.
Illinois State Register: 184.

Immediate: annexation of Texas, 30,
31, 32 note 28; settlement of Ne
braska, 82, 115 ff, 119 ff, 123 ff,
128-129, 130, 160, 163 note 228, 165
note 232. See also Atchison, Ben
ton, Benton's Map of Nebraska,
Indians, Letters, Manypenny, and
Resolutions.
Independence (Mo.) : Benton speaks
at, 117 note 164.
Indians: 84, 85 note 106, 91, 116 ff,
119, 120, 121 ff, 135, 137, 143, 14s.
148, 155, 157, 165-166, 180. See
also Guthrie, Immediate, and Wy
andotts.
Internal Improvements: 61 note 73,
70, 186.
lowans: interest of in Nebraska, 100,
103, 169 note 236, 174, 176 ff, 178
note 252.
lovoa Republican: quoted, 130.
Iowa State Gazette: quoted, 84 note
106, 177 note 251, 179.
Jackson, Andrew: 30; quoted, 31,
32 note 27.
Jackson Claiborne F. : 34 note 30,
38, 40 note 37.
Jackson (Mo.) : resolutions of meet
ing in, 47 note 48 ; Benton's speech
at, 75-
Jackson Resolutions.: adopted, 38;
quoted, 38 ff; authorship of, 39
note 37; purpose of, 50 note 52,
54 note 59, 55 ; Benton's appeal
from, 39 ff; form anti-Benton
platform, 50; alleged fraud in
passage, 54; in campaign of 1852,
69 note 86; Benton's letter to
Boonville Observer concerning,
69 note 86 ; in Missouri legisla
ture of 1852, 70-71 ; connection
with the Repeal, 107.
Jefferson City (Mo.) : Benton's

INDEX

309

speech at, quoted, 30 note 21, 31,
32, 40-47.
Jefferson Examiner: quoted, 132.
Jefferson Inquirer: quoted, 50 note
53, 69 note 87, 112, 140.
Johnson, Hadley D.: 175 ff, 208 note
292.
Johnson, Rev. Thomas: 146, 147,
148, 150, 151, 153, 155, 157, 208
note 292.
Judges: Benton assails the Missouri
judges, 46, 58.
Kansas: early slavery in, 88 note
114.
Kansas City: Benton speaks at, 117
note 164, 253.
Kansas-Nebraska Bill: 16, 28, 50,
162, 173, 185, 186, 207, 208, 210,
214, 221-223, 225, 226, 228, 237,
243, 258, 261, 264, 266 note 368,
277 ff. See also Administration,
Atchison, Benton, Blair, F. P., Jr.,
Cabinet, Clayton Amendment,
Compromise of 1850, Congress,
Dixon, Dodge, Douglas, Johnson,
Missouri Compromise, Missouri
Politics, Parker, Repeal, and Su
persedure.
Kapp's: Geschichte der Sklaverei,
cited, 17 note 3.
Kasson, John A.: 173, 260.
Keyster, A.: 260.
Kickapoo (Kans.) : convention at,
148 ; resolutions adopted at, 149 ff.
King, Vice-President Wm. R.: 216
note 304.
Klippel, Adam: letter to S. P. Chase,
57 ff-
Kreckel, A.: 173, 260.
Lamb, A. W.: 263.
Lanphier and Walker: Douglas's let
ter to, 184 ff.

Letters: of J. S. Green replying to
Benton, 52 ff ; of Adam Klippel to
Chase, 57 ff; of J. S. Bowlin to
his constituents, 59 ; of S. P. Chase
to E. S. Hamlin, 159 note 224; of
A. S. Latty to S. P. Chase, 181
note 255 ; of Douglas to Walker
and Lanphier, 185-186; of F. P.
Blair, Jr., to Missouri Democrat,
202 note 283, 232 note 324; of
Dixon to Foote, 209 note 295, 210
note 297.
Of Andrew Jackson: to W. B.
Lewis, 31 ; to B. F. Butler, 32 note
27. Of Benton: to "The People of
Missouri" (1849), 41 note 40,
(1^53) 76; discussing union with
Calhounites, 62-63 j to Boonville
Observer, 69 note 86; to citizens
of Cole County, 76, 116 ff, 255;
to citizens of Monroe County, 121 ;
to Mix, 120.
Of J. C. Calhoun: to A. P. Cal
houn, 44 note 45 ; to T. G.
Clemson, 59 note 65 ; to A. W.
Venable, 59 note 65.
Of Atchison: replying to Ben
ton's Appeal, 52; to S. Treat, 78
note 100; to Secretary of Inter
ior, 124-125 ; to Missouri Examin
er, 156 note 221.
Of Manypenny: to Benton, 120;
to Atchison, 126; to Independence
Reporter, 128-129.
Of Guthrie: to N. Y. Tribune,
153 note 215 ; to Dawes, 83 note
102, 91 note 124; to Washburn, 87
note 109; to Wm. Walker 88, 90.
Lindley, J. W.: 101, 263.
Lingenfelter, L.: 177.
Louisville Courier: quoted, 67 note
83.
"Lynceus": pseudonym, 277 note 377.

3IO

INDEX

McEwen, Wm. ; 177.
McKissick, C. W.: 177.
Manypenny, George W.: Commis
sioner of Indian Affairs; letter to
Benton on Map, 120; letter to
Atchison, 125; letter of Independ
ence Reporter, 128 ; mentioned in
Kickapoo resolutions, 149; attack
ed by Guthrie, 152, 153 note 215
visits Nebraska Indians, 154 ff,
162 note 228 ; meets the Wyan
dotts, 155-156; object of visit, 158
fails to negotiate treaties, 157 ff
charges based thereon, 156 ff
relations with Atchison, 156 ff
Atchison's letter to Missouri Ex
aminer, 156 note 221 ; accom
panied by Johnson and Whitfield,
157; hostility of Bentonites, 158
note 223; instructions quoted, 158;
report quoted, 155 note 219, 157
note 222, 159; pro-slavery sympa
thies, 158 note 224; censured by
Andrew County meeting, 165 note
232. Comments on: St. Joseph Ga
zette, 125 note 174; N. Y. Even
ing Post, 181 ; N. Y. Journal of
Commerce, 182; Missouri Repub
lican, 199.
Mason, Senator J. M. : 212, 213, 214,
230 ff.
Mayall, S. : 107 note 149.
Means, Wm. C. : 176.
Methodist Church: 84, 85 note 107,
151.
Miller, J. G. : 100, 196, 263.
Miller, O. C: 147.
Mississippian, The: quoted, 19Q ff.
Missouri Compromise: restriction on
slavery, 22, 39, 104, 168, 179; op
position of Judge Price, 35; Mis
souri legislative resolutions en
dorsing, 37 ; Atchison's attitude to
ward, 104, 134 ff; repudiated by

the North, 93 note 125, 188, 190,
191. See also Atchison, Benton,
Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Ne
braska, Price, W. C, and Repeal.
Missouri Examiner: Atchison's let
ter to, 156 note 221.
Missouri Legislature: memorial on
Texas, 32, 262 ; resolutions against
Texas, 32 note 28; Jackson reso
lutions in, 38, 46, 54 note 59, 262;
party divisions in, 64 ff; session
of 1850-51, 64 ff; message of pro-
Benton caucus, 64; reply of anti-
Benton caucus, 64; anti-Benton
resolution by Mr. Hill, 65; elec
tion of Geyer to Senate, 66; re
marks of Mr. Stewart, 66 note
81; special session, 1852, 70; reg
ular session, 53, 71 ; memorial for
Nebraska Territory, 97; resolu
tions on Benton and Pacific Rail
road, 171 note 239 ; resolutions en
dorsing popular sovereignty, 172-
173 ; comment of Missouri Repub
lican, 172 note 240.
Missouri Politics: 24; Democratic
dissensions, 27 ff; effect of Ben
ton's appeal and canvass, 58, 59,
64 note 77; position of Whigs, 51
note 54, 60, 61, 63, 68 note 87;
campaign of 1850, 61, 63, 64; at
tempts to heal party schism, 62,
67; campaign of 1852, 67 ff;
state Democratic convention, 67-
68 ; Benton's election to the House,
68 ff; campaign of 1853, 109 ff,
114; alignment of press, in; re
lation of Repeal to senatorial con
test, 219 ff. See also Anti-Ben
ton, Atchison, Benton, Calhoun, J.
C, Congress, Douglas, Jackson
Resolutions, Letters, Missouri Leg
islature, Pacific Railroad, Parker,
Price, W. C, Resolutions, and
Whigs.

INDEX

311

Missouri Republican: in note 156;
quoted, 119 note 165, 127, 199, 214,
215 note 303, 221, 223, 224, 271.
Missourians: interest in Nebraska
territorial movement, 82, 100, 101,
114, 136 ff, 163, 164, 167, 169 ff,
173, 258 ff, 270 ff. See also An
drew County, Nebraska Conven
tion, Parkville, St. Joseph, and St.
Louis.
Monroe County (Mo.) : Benton's
letter to the citizens of, 121.
Mundy, Isaac: 147.
Napton, Judge W» B.: 39 note 37,
46 note 46.
National Intelligencer: quoted, 144
note 199, 154 note 218, 161 note
227, 176 note 250.
National Quarterly Review: Col.
Parker's article in, quoted, 229,
264 ff.
Nebraska: territorial bills, 15, 20,
22, 81, 90, 94 ff, 98, 99, 100, 118,
122, 195 ff, 238 ff; Douglas's lack
of interest in, 19, 83 note 103, 94
ff, 98 note 134, 99-100; final move
ment for' territorial governraent,
81 ff; and Pacific Railroad, 75-76,
81, 87, 107, 143 ff, 150; recom
mendation of Secretary Wilkins,
95-96; memorial of Missouri leg
islature, 97; Delegate to Congress,
147, 250 ; Missouri politicians and,
144 note 198, 150; Provisional
Government, 143 ff; organization
favored by Benton, 89 and by
Atchison, 102 ff; controversy over
"immediate" settlement, 115 ff;
Dodge's resolution in Senate, g^-
100; Parkville resolutions, 82
note 102; Kickapoo convention
and resolutions, 148-149; organiz
ation anticipated, 178 ff, 183, 191,
193 ff; Andrew county resolutions.

164 ff; St. Joseph resolutions, 168;
Manypenny's visit to, 154 ff;
Manypenny recommends territor
ial government, 161. See also
Atchison, Benton, Douglas, Emi
gration, Guthrie, Immediate, In
dians, lowans, Johnson, Kansas-
Nebraska, Letters, Missourians,
Pacific Railroad, Public Meetings,
and Resolutions.
New Orleans Crescent: quoted, 69.
Newspapers: pro-Benton and anti-
Benton, in Missouri, 51 note 54,
58, 111. See also Bibliography.
New York Courier: quoted, no.
New York Evening Post: quoted, 156
note 221, 181.
New York Herald: quoted, 212 ff.
New York Independent: quoted, 170
note 238.
New York Journal of Commerce:
quoted, 181, 220.
New York Tribune: quoted, 276 ff.
Nicholson, O. P.: 273.
Nullification: 30, 49 note 51, 60 note
73, 63-
O'Driscoll, B.: 167.
Oliver, Mordecai: 247, 263.
Pacific Railroad: championed by
Benton, 72 ff; interest of Wyan
dotts in, 73, 81, 85, 86 note 108,
142; connection with Nebraska
territorial movement, 75-76, 81, 87,
107, 143 ff, 150; Atchison's posi
tion toward, 77 ff, 260 note 357;
route of, 72, 79, 142 ff, 237 ff; in
terest of Illinois in, 237 ff; as an
issue in Missouri, 114; Lindley re
fers to, 101 ; Douglas's interest in,
186, 237 ff.
Resolutions on: Wyandott Con
vention, 144; Kickapoo Conven
tion, 149; Andrew County resolu-

312

INDEX

tions, 165 note 232; Nebraska
Convention, 169 note 237.
Parker, Col. John A. : credibility dis
cussed, 264 ff; his Secret History
of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, 229,
264 ff; on origin of Repeal, 266
note 368, 270 ff; removal as li
brarian, 267 ff.
Parkville (Mo.) : Atchison's speech
at, 77, 123, 134, 136, 256, 281;
meeting of citizens, 81 ; resolu
tions, 82 ; presented to the Senate,
99 ; Luminary, 276 ff, 284.
Paxton, Wm. M.: Annals of Platte
County, Missouri, quoted, 49 note
50.
Phelps, J. S. : 80, 86 note 107, 90
note 120, 91, 97, 114.
Phillips, Phillip: 213, 214.
Phillips, William : Conquest of Kan
sas, quoted, 84 note 106, 88 note
114, 148 note 207.
Phillips, Waldorf H.: 265 ff.
Pierce, Charles W. : 177.
Pierce, Franklin: 79 note 100, 80,
no, in note 155, 212 ff, 214.
Platte Argus: 82 note 102, 277.
Platte City (Mo.) : incident during
Benton's speech, 49 note 50; Atch
ison's speech at, 23, 134, 281 ; res
olutions of citizens, 226 note 319.
Platte County (Mo.) : Paxton's An
nals of, quoted, 49 note 50.
Platte Territory: Hall's bill for or
ganization of, 81 note loi, 90, 99.
Polk, Trusten: 34 note 30, 290.
Polk, President James K. : 31.
Popular Demand (for territorial
government in Nebraska). See
also Immediate, lowans, Missour
ians, Public Meetings and Resolu
tions.
Popular Sovereignty: Douglas and,
18; favored by Atchison, 135, 137,
189 ff, 255 ff; Missouri Republi-

'¦ can on, 172 note 240; discussed
by Richmond Enquirer, The Mis
sissippian, and Albany Argus,
118 ff.
Endorsed: by Missouri legisla
ture, 39, 172-173, 227; by Andrew
County, 165 ; by St. Joseph meet
ing, 168 ; by Nebraska Conven
tion, 170.
Pottawatomie County (Iowa) : Ne
braska meetings, 178 note 252.
Price, Sterling: 34.
Price, Thomas L.; 173, 260.
Price, W. A.: 164.
Price, Judge William C. : 33, 34, 46,
66; hostility to Benton, 34-35;
suggest Repeal to Benton, 35;
claims authorship of the Repeal,
36 note 32; on plans of Missouri
radicals, 105 note 147; on emigra
tion of Wyandotts, 85 note 107;
importance in the Repeal move
ment, 243 ; sketch of, 243 ff ; on
the settlement of Nebraska, 250;
on slavery agitation among Wy
andotts, 251.
Provisional Government of Nebras
ka: early steps in the establish
ment of, 144; organized, 147;
Wm. Walker's comment upon,
152; Guthrie's account of, 153
note 215. See also Guthrie, John
son, Nebraska, Walker, Wm., and
Wyandotts.
Public Meetings: in Missouri and
Iowa, 164 ff, 167, 169, 170 note
238, 173, 176. See also Immedi
ate, lowans, Missourians, and
Resolutions.
Rector, Hon. Benj.: 177.
Reeder, A. H.: 152.
Reid, Col. J. W.: 49 note 50.
Repeal of the Missouri Compromise:
15, 16, 20, 22, 24, 28, 29, 34 note

INDEX

313

30, 35, 36 note 321, 72, 81, 93, 105,
106, 138-139, 140, 141, 153 note
215, i68, 170, 179, 180, 182, 183,
186, 192, 196, 201, 202, 207, 209-
211, 214, 215, 217-219, 221-222,
227, 229, 233, 237, 242, 243, 258,
269, 272-275, 277 ff, 286. See al
so Anti-Benton, Atchison, Benton,
Blair, Compromise of 1850, Doug
las, Missouri Compromise, Price,
W. C, and Supersedure.
Reports: of Commissioner Manypen
ny, 155 note 219, 159; of Senate
Committee on Territories, Jan. 4,
1854, 204 ff, 208 ff.
Resolutions: against "immediate" an
nexation, 32 note 28 ; pro-Benton,
37; anti-Benton, 38, 64-65; Jack
son legislative, 38 ff; of Texas,
Maryland, Virginia, Georgia and
North Carolina, 41 ; of Jackson
(Mo.), 47 note 48; of Liberty
(Mo.), 51 note 54; of Calhoun in
U. S. Senate, 43 ff; of Parkville
(Mo.), 82; of Wyandott Conven
tion, 144 ff; of Andrew County,
164 ff; of St. Joseph, 167; of Ne
braska Convention, 169 ff; of pro-
slavery meeting in Missouri, 170
note 238; of Missouri legislature
on Pacific R. R., 171 note 239; of
Missouri legislature on popular
sovereignty, 172 ff; of St. Louis
meeting, 173, 260; of Pottawat
omie County meeting, 178 note
252; of Platte City meeting, 226.
Review of Political Action in Mis
souri: quoted, 56 note 62, 68 note
84, 69 note 86.
Rhodes, J. F. : on Douglas's motives,
17-
Richardson, W. A.: 88, 90, 91, 195,
221.
Richmond Enquirer: quoted, 188,
198, 268 note 370.

Right of Instruction: 53 ff, 65.
Ritchie, Thomas: 266.
Road to India: 74 note 91, 79 note
100, 80, 119 note 165.
Rusk, Senator T. J.: 94, 285.
St. Joseph Gazette: quoted, 125
note 174, 140.
St. Joseph Meeting: proceedings of,
167 ff.
St. Louis (Mo.) : Nebraska meeting,
173, 260; interest in territorial
question, 261.
St. Louis Evening News: quoted,
123.
St. Louis Intelligencer: quoted, 192
note 268.
Samuels, G. W.: 164.
Sarpy's: proceedings at, 175 ff.
Savannah Sentinel: quoted, 122 note
170.
Schouler, James: on Douglas's mo
tives, 16.
Senate: Committee on Territories,
195 note 272; votes analyzed, 219
note 307, 238 ff.
Senatorial Campaign of 1853: in
Missouri, 109 ff.
Sharp, Col. J. L. : 177.
Sheldon, A. E. : his and J. Amos
Barrett's new explanation of
Douglas's motives, 19 note 8, 237
ff.
Sidney (Iowa) : meeting at, 176.
Slavery Question in Kansas-Nebras
ka: 18, 35, 85 note 107, 88, 90, 92
note 124, 93, 98, 104, 105 note 147,
108, 114, 131, 132, 135 ff, 139-
140, 141, 145-146, 150 note 209,
153 note 215, 158, 165, 168, 170,
171 note 239, 172, 179, 180, 181,
182, 183, 186, 188 ff, 190-191, 196,
198, 199, 201, 202, 203, 205, 207,
212-213, 221, 228, 253 ff, 272, 280.

314

INDEX

Smith, Prof. Theodore C. : on Doug
las's motives, 17 note 6.
Smith, Rev. William: 247.
Snyder, Judge: 177.
Solomon, Dan H.: 177.
Starr, Rev. Frederick: 276 note 377.
Stiles, George P.: 177.
Stuart, Senator C. E.: 218.
Supersedure: doctrine of, 21, 187 ff,
193 ff, 203, 209, 213, 217-218.
Switzler, Col. Wm. F.: quoted, 59,
60, 66, 70, 71.
Texas: annexation of, 30, 31, 32.
Toombs, Senator Robert: 34, 247,
248, 283, 284, 287.
Tucker, Beverly: 273.
Turley, Marshall: 177.
Tyler, John: 31.
Van Buskirk, Judge Daniel: 164.
Venable, A. W. : Calhoun's letter to,
quoted, 59 note 65.
Walker, Senator I. P.: 218.
Walker, M. R.: 148.
Walker, William: Provisional Gov
ernor of Nebraska Territory, 85
note 106, 147; proclamation of,
147; on election of Delegate to
Congress, 152; Journal, quoted,
151, 153 note 215, 155 note 220;
Notes on Nebraska, quoted, 86
note 108, 87 note no, 91, 174 ff.
Washington (D. C.) : Missouri sen
atorial contest transferred to, 29,
141, 195 ff, 198, 199, 205, 214,
215 note 303, 220 ff, 227, 255 ff.
Washington Correspondence : of
newspapers, 64 note 77, 67 note
83, no, 181, 197, 198, 199, 204,
205, 214, 215 note 303, 220, 221,
223, 225, 268 note 370.
Western Eagle, The: quoted, 44
note 45, 47 note 48, 50 note 52,

52 note 55, 64 note 77, 66 note 81.
Weston (Mo.) : Atchison's speech at,
77, 79 note 100, 119, 134, 257-258;
Reporter's inquiry of Atchison,
119; Benton speaks at, 117 note
164.
Westport (Mo.) : 253, 255, 281.
Whigs: in Missouri, as affected by
Benton's Appeal, 60; attitude to
ward Benton, 51 note 54, 60 note
73, 61, 70, 71; Benton's attitude
toward, 63, 68 note 87; attitude
toward Jackson Resolutions, 60
note 73.
Whitfield, Gen. J. W.: 145, 157.
Wilkerson, Representative: 49 note
SO.
Wilkins, William: report recom
mending creation of territorial
government in Nebraska, 95.
Wilmot Proviso: Southern legisla
tive resolutions on, 41 ; Benton's
position on, 47 note 48, 55 ; Atch
ison's position on, 52 note 55, 113;
Green's discussion of, 54 ff; senti
ment in Missouri toward, 56. See
also Atchison, Benton, and Green.
Wilson, Senator Henry: speech
quoted, 282 ff.
Wilson, Woodrow: on Douglas's
motives, 17.
Wyandott Indians: residence in
Ohio, 83; civilization of, 83 ff;
emigration to Nebraska, 84, 85
note 107; slavery agitation among,
85 note 107, 251 ; and Benton's
railway project, 73 ; interest in
Pacific R R., 73, 81, 85, 86 note
108, 142; and establishment of
territorial government in Nebras
ka, 75-76, 81, 87, 143 ff; elect
Delegate to Congress, 87; con
vention of, 144; renominate Guth
rie, 147; dissatisfaction with
Johnson's election, 151-152; visit-

INDEX 315
ed by Manypenny, 155-156. See itics, Nebraska, Pacific Railroad,
also Atchison, Benton, Guthrie, Price, W. C, Provisional Gov-
Immediate, Letters, Missouri Pol- ernment, and Walker, Wm.

THE TORCH PRESS
CEDAH RAPIDS. IOWA

5