KANSAS--A CRISIS IN OUR NATIONAL HISTORY
_There are no greater heroes in the history of our country
than Eli Thayer of Massachusetts, and Charles Robinson of
Kansas._--WILLIAM H. TAFT
In its relation to Government, our country has completed two periods of
its existence. The Colonial period ended at Yorktown. The period of
State Sovereignty had its ending at Appomattox. Kansas was the herald of
Appomattox; the climax in the series of political incidents which led to
secession and the war between the States.
By the Ordinance of 1787, the last Continental Congress excluded slavery
from all that part of the public domain lying north of the Ohio River.
In 1803 our territorial limits were expanded by the purchase of
Louisiana, and a serious clash between the Free and the Slave sections
of the country came upon the division, in relation to slavery, of this
newly acquired domain. It was precipitated upon Congress by the
application of Missouri, in 1818, to be admitted into the Union. Its
constitution provided for slavery. The northern part of the new state
extended from the Mississippi to the Missouri; the north boundary being
40° 30' north latitude; and this line, taken in connection with the
Platte River from the Missouri to the Rocky Mountains, suggested what
the South intended should be the dividing line between the sections in
the new territory. After two years of acrimonious debate a compromise
measure was adopted admitting Missouri, as prayed for, but excluding
slavery forever from all the remaining territory, acquired from France,
lying north of 36° 30' north latitude.
The debate upon the measure developed the existence, in the North, of a
growing hostile sentiment toward slavery, which confirmed in the minds
of Southern statesmen the necessity of keeping the number of Slave
States equal, at least, with the number of Free States; for only by thus
maintaining a balance of power in the Senate, could legislation adverse
to slavery be prevented. Also, the limitations of the compromise
agreement emphasized a further necessity; the acquisition of additional
territory south of 36° 30' from which Slave States could be created in
the future, to balance the admission into the Union of prospective Free
States. This resulted in a propaganda for territorial expansion
southward. In pursuance of such policy, the revolt against Mexico, by
Texas, was probably encouraged.[60] In discussing the recognition of the
Republic of Texas, in January, 1836, Mr. Calhoun said, "It prepared the
way for the speedy admission of Texas into the Union, which would be a
necessity to the proper balance of power in the Union between the
slave-holding and non-slave-holding Commonwealths, upon which the
preservation of the Union and the perpetuation of its institutions
rested.[61]
The State of Vermont "apprehended that the political strength which the
annexation of Texas would give to the slave-holding interests, would
soon lead to a dissolution of the Union, or to the political degradation
of the Free States"; and, in pursuance of that apprehension the
"Legislature of Vermont adopted a set of resolutions protesting against
the annexation of Texas or the admission of any Slave State into the
Union," which was presented in Congress.[62] Having respect for Northern
sentiment, Congress kept Florida waiting six years: until Iowa was ready
to come into the Union.[63] The South consented readily to the
settlement of the "Oregon Boundary Question" at 49° north latitude
instead of 54° 40'. In fact, at the time the Democratic National
Convention of 1844 declared our title to the whole of Oregon as far as
54° 40' to be "clear and unquestionable," Mr. Calhoun, secretary of
state, had proposed to Her Majesty's representative to settle the
controversy by adopting the 49th parallel as the boundary.[64] Texas was
admitted into the Union; the articles of annexation providing that it
might be subdivided into five states, at any time it chose to make such
division. Also, after a war of conquest with Mexico, Upper California
and New Mexico were added to the public domain.
The mutual congratulations indulged in by the Southern managers over the
accomplishment of the pro-slavery program for territorial expansion,
were interrupted by intelligence of the most startling character. Before
the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo had been signed, gold was discovered in
the Sierras, and the occupation of California by emigrants, principally
from the Northern States, was an immediate result. Thus, the conquest of
Mexico--the prize trophy in the triumphal procession of pro-slavery
events--carried with it, by the irony of fate, the Nemesis of her
despoiled people. Within two years a Free State had been carved out of
the Territory which the South had won for slavery.
The contests which were had over the admission of Missouri into the
Union, and the annexation of Texas, were trivial in comparison with the
storm that burst upon the Thirty-first Congress over the admission of
California. The already strained relations between the North and the
South reached the limits of tension; and but for the tabling of the
"Wilmot Proviso," and the adoption of the "Compromise" measures, the
cords that bound the Union would have snapped then and there. "The first
weeks of the session were more than enough to show in its full breadth
and depth, even to the duller eyes, the abyss that yawned between the
North and the South."[65] "All the Union men, North and South, Whigs and
Democrats, for the period of six months were assembled in caucuses every
day, with Clay in the chair, Cass upon his right hand, Webster upon his
left hand, and the Whigs and Democrats on either side."[66] It was
during this debate that Mr. Seward announced the doctrine of the
"_higher law_":
The Constitution regulates our stewardship; the
Constitution devotes the domain (the territories not formed
into states) to union, to justice, to defence, to welfare,
and to liberty. But there is a _higher law than the
Constitution_, which regulates our authority over the
domain and devotes it to the same noble purposes.
Webster thus began his great speech:
I wish to speak today, not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a
Northern man, but as an American.... The imprisoned winds
are let loose. The East, the North, and the stormy South
combine to throw the whole sea into commotion, to toss its
billows to the skies, and disclose its profoundest
depths.... I speak today for the preservation of the Union.
Hear me for my Cause.[67]
Said Toombs of Georgia:
I do not then hesitate to avow before this House and the
Country, and in the presence of the living God, that if by
your legislation you seek to drive us from the territories
of California and New Mexico, purchased by the common blood
and treasure of the whole people, and to abolish slavery in
this district, thereby attempting to fix a National
degradation upon half of the states of this confederacy _I
am for disunion_, and if my physical courage be equal to
the maintenance of my convictions of duty, I will devote
all I am, and all I have on earth to its consummation.[68]
This speech was repeatedly interrupted by storms of applause. And
Stephens, too, was greeted with loud acclamations when he announced his
concurrence in every word of his colleague, and declared the Union
dissolved from the moment an attack upon a section became an
accomplished fact.
Colcock of South Carolina then announced that he would bring in a formal
motion for the dissolution of the Union, as soon as the abolition of
slavery in the District of Columbia should have been resolved upon, or
the Wilmot Proviso passed.[69] The compromise agreement was effected by
the fine patriotism, the sagacity, and the personal sacrifice of two
great figures of that generation: Clay and Webster. In promoting this
measure, they exhausted their political resources, and forfeited their
political fortunes. Neither of them could have been reëlected to the
senate.
Nothing was settled by the compromise of 1850; both sides accepting it
in a tentative way. "The present Crisis may pass," wrote Mr. Stephens in
1850,[70] "the present adjustment may be made, but the great question of
permanence of slavery in the Southern states will be far from being
settled thereby. And, in my opinion, the crisis of that question is not
far ahead."
This review, altogether too brief, is made herein to show the extreme
tension of the sectional feeling which existed in the country on account
of the extension of slavery; and the national significance of the
struggle that was soon to develop over the question in Kansas. It also
foreshadows the action the Southern States would surely take, if the
Kansas decision declared against them.
By the admission of California into the Union as a Free State, the South
lost the "balance of power"; but the general situation at the time was
far from being hopeless. Further territorial expansion was
necessary--imperatively so--but the prospect was still full of promising
possibilities. There was Cuba, that Buchanan had offered a hundred
millions for in 1848; out of which two, or, if necessary, three States
could be made. And, looming up in the more remote horizon, were
Nicaragua and the remainder of Mexico. And, last but not least,
"Squatter Sovereignty," or, in more modern parlance: "Let the People
Rule."
The "Pearl of the Antilles" was the prize trophy in the new crusade for
territorial acquisition, and "Free Cuba" the slogan. The efforts to get
control of the island, for purposes of annexation, were persistent, and
the history of them is intensely interesting. First came filibustering
operations. Three expeditions were sent out in 1849-1851. The command of
the last of these was offered--first to Jefferson Davis, and then to
Robert E. Lee.[71] It sailed August 3, 1851, under Lopez. In the first
scrimmage with the Spaniards, Colonel Crittenden (son of Senator
Crittenden of Kentucky) and fifty of his men were captured, taken to
Havana, and shot, August 24th. The remainder of the Army of Invasion was
defeated; Lopez was taken and garroted; and his followers who had been
taken prisoners, were sent to Spain.
General Quitman's expedition, organized in 1853-1854, would have been
more formidable than any theretofore undertaken. He had commanded a
brigade in General Scott's army, in Mexico, and had been Governor of
Mississippi. His demonstrations, however, may have been merely in
support of Mr. Marcy's efforts, at the time, to open negotiations with
Spain for purchasing the island. Meanwhile the Black Warrior incident
offered the most promising opportunity of all. The provocation in that
case could have been held to be sufficient to justify a declaration of
war; and that surely would have been the result, had it not been for
the tornado of anti-slavery sentiment which was let loose at the time by
the promulgation, in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, then pending in Congress,
of the new doctrine of "Squatter Sovereignty"; and by Mr. Dixon's
amendment thereto, expressly repealing the restriction of the time
honored Missouri Compromise. "It may be affirmed with confidence," says
Mr. Rhodes,[72] "that Northern public opinion, excited by the
Kansas-Nebraska act, alone prevented this unjust war." The New York
_Courier and Inquirer_ said June 1st:
Does any sane man live who believes that if Cuba was
tendered to us tomorrow, with the full sanction of England
and France, that this people would consent to receive and
annex her?... There was a time when the North would have
consented to annex Cuba, but the Nebraska wrong has forever
rendered annexation impossible.
A revolution in Spain gave an opportunity for negotiations to purchase
the island; but the suggestion that a few millions of money should be
placed at the disposal of the Executive, during the recess of Congress,
to be used in the Spanish-Cuban business, met no response;[73] while the
"Ostend Manifesto" received no consideration whatever. The trouble was
that the South had been moving with too much energy and too arrogantly.
Her statesmen had undertaken to do everything at once. Had they been
less aggressive, or more conciliatory and diplomatic, and concentrated
their efforts on the acquisition of Cuba, they surely could have
succeeded;[74] and would then have been in position to await the
psychological moment to move the Kansas question. The Missouri
Compromise was a "solemn covenant entered into by two opposing parties
for the preservation of amicable relations." It was not sustained by any
constitutional authority. Kansas Territory, therefore, might have been
peacefully occupied by emigrants from Missouri and the Southern States,
as Missouri had been, leaving, with confidence, the constitutionality of
the restrictions against slavery, for future settlement by the courts.
The creation of the State of Kansas was a political proposition pure and
simple. The amendment to the Nebraska bill creating Kansas Territory
provided for a "complete Territorial government; including a legislature
with two houses and thirty-nine members; although, at the time, there
was not one white man in the Territory, except those intermarried with
Indians and the few who were there under authority of Federal law....
The project fell upon Congress as suddenly and apparently as uncaused as
a meteor from the political sky."[75]
The settlement of the Territory was promoted by the leaders of the
pro-slavery and anti-slavery sections of the country. The South was
spurred to activity by the extremity of its political and commercial
necessities; while the North was impelled by a great moral sentiment,
that had developed with time and changes which had occurred in public
thought and in economic conditions. But the fact should not be lost
sight of, that the ethical emotions which nourished this sentiment had
their origin, or beginnings, in the unprofitable and unsatisfactory
character of slave labor in that section. The Southern statesmen staked
the entire stock of their political assets on the result in Kansas. The
North already had a majority of one State, with the Territories,
Minnesota and Oregon, waiting at the threshold of the Union for
admission into the family of States. If the South lost Kansas, its
political power and prestige would be destroyed; slavery would
thereafter be dependent, in the Union, upon the mercy or charity of the
aggressively hostile anti-slavery sentiment which it had too arrogantly
aroused.
The plans of the Southerners for the creation of the new State, were
well matured, and seemed in every way feasible. The geographical
situation was ideal. The close proximity of the friendly State of
Missouri, with a large percentage of its population on its western
border, backed by the mutuality of every Southern State, seemed to be
sufficient guaranty that the necessary voting population could, and
would, be promptly furnished. They had good cause to believe that they
could get their people into the Territory in sufficient numbers to
control the necessary elections.
In the Senate Mr. Seward said, May 25, 1854:
The sun has set for the last time upon the guaranteed and
certain liberties of all the unsettled portions of the
American continent that lie within the jurisdiction of the
United States. Tomorrow's sun will rise in deep eclipse
over these. How long that obscuration shall last, is known
only to the power that directs all human events. For myself
I know this: that no human power can prevent its coming on,
and that its passage off will be hastened and secured by
others than those now belonging to this generation.[76]
Authorities by the score might be cited to show the gloom and
despondency of the North at this time. The people had reason to believe
that Kansas and Nebraska would become Slave States, and that the
preponderance of Southern influence in governmental affairs would be
perpetuated indefinitely.
May 30, 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Bill was signed and the doctrine of
Squatter Sovereignty thereby crystallized into law. Immediately the
historic contest for the occupation and political control of Kansas
Territory was on: a contest that marks an epoch in the history of our
country. The great events of the succeeding decade: the acts of
secession, the war between the States, with its tragedies; and the
Emancipation Proclamation, were all involved in the result.
It cannot be said that the contest was of local concern, carried on
between factions in Kansas over the question whether the State should be
a Free State or a Slave State; for at that time there were no settlers
in the Territory to comprise such factions. The interest in the
impending struggle was nation wide. Congress had merely cleared the
ground for action; "pitched the ring," for what was to be the first
political battle in the "fight to a finish" between the slave-holding
and the non-slave-holding sections of our country: the beginning of the
final struggle between freedom and slavery.
The question of slavery in the Territory was to be decided by the votes
of the people who would emigrate to and occupy it. The South had chosen
to place its reliance upon votes in a contest where oratory, tact, and
statesmanship had theretofore failed. Its slogan was "Squatter
Sovereignty." The answer given back by the North was "Organized
Emigration:" "a power unknown before in the world's history."
The rapid settlement of California had shown that any country will draw
emigration thereto, if it offers an attractive lure. Mr. Eli Thayer, of
Massachusetts, had made a note of that fact and believed that what the
discovery of gold had done to promote emigration to that state, the
advantages of soil and climate for successful home building, would do
for Kansas, if properly advertised. The formation of the Massachusetts
Emigrant Aid Company, with an authorized capital of $5,000,000, was a
result of his conclusions upon the subject. It proved to be "a stronger
defiance to slavocracy than anything ever uttered in the hall of
Congress." This commercial novelty put its capital in the advance
instead of in the rear of the column of occupation. It assisted
emigrants to reach their destination, and helped them to develop their
farms. For this purpose it installed saw mills and flour mills, where
needed; furnished machinery and implements; built churches, school
houses, and hotels. Also, it proposed to earn dividends for its
stockholders by these and other investments. As Mr. Thayer expressed
it: "When a man can do a magnanimous act; when he can do a decidedly
good thing, and at the same time make money by it, all his faculties are
in harmony."
An incident of the period of the occupation of Kansas is thus related by
Mr. Thayer on page 187 of the _Crusade_: "One day, in 1855, Senator
Atchison, with some others, was at the wharf in Kansas City, when a
river boat approached with one of our engines on deck. Atchison turned
to those on the right and asked: 'What is that on the deck of the
steamboat?' His companion answered: 'Senator, that is a steam engine and
a steam boiler.' Turning to the others he repeated his question. They
repeated the answer before given. He replied: 'You are a pack of ----
fools. That is a Yankee city going to Kansas; and by ----! in six months
it will cast a hundred Abolition votes.'"
The affairs of the company in Kansas were placed under the direction of
Dr. Charles Robinson, also of Massachusetts. He came to the Territory
early in July, 1854; located the town of Lawrence, and established there
the headquarters of the bureau of northern immigration.
Naturally the first immigrants to arrive came from Missouri. In
sentiment they were quite unanimously pro-slavery; but that was not
discouraging, for the publicity bureau, organized by Mr. Thayer and ably
backed by Mr. Greeley through the columns of the New York _Tribune_, had
proclaimed the advantages and possibilities of the new Territory far and
wide; and the public interest thus awakened gave ample promise of
satisfactory results in the near future. July 31st, the first
consignment of emigrants from the North, twenty-nine in number, arrived
at Lawrence; and September 2d the second installment of one hundred and
fourteen arrived and joined the initial company. Within a few months
"Organized Emigration" was in successful operation; and by the close of
the year 1856, it had fulfilled the Kansas prophecy. As Mr. Thayer
states it:[77]
We had triumphed in the great conflict. We had in Kansas
four Free-State men to every one of our opponents; our
numbers were rapidly increasing while theirs were
diminishing. Buford had returned to Alabama. Atchinson and
Stringfellow had given up the fight.
Concerning the Kansas conflict Dr. Burgess says:
The record of this struggle is certainly one of the most
remarkable chapters in the history of the United States.
There is much to admire in it, much to be ashamed of, and
much to be repudiated as foul and devilish. The prudence,
moderation, tact, and bravery of Dr. Robinson and his
friends have rarely been excelled by the statesmen and
diplomatists of the New World or of the Old. They were
placed in a most trying situation both by their foes and by
those who, professing to be their friends, endangered the
cause more by violent and brutal deeds than did their open
enemies. Their triumph over all these difficulties is a
marvel of shrewd, honest, and conservative management,
which may well serve as one of the best object-lessons of
our history for succeeding generations.[78]
It is not within the purview of this sketch to recite in detail the
various incidents, accidents, and extremities which befell the Northern
emigrants in working out the problems of state building. They began to
acquire experience promptly with the arrival of the first colony; and
the authorities all agree, that, during the ensuing three years an area
of low political barometer was general throughout the Territory, with a
continuous storm center, of great energy, at Lawrence. "By the sharp
logic of the revolver and bowie knife, the people of Missouri became the
people of Kansas." Residents of Missouri furnished liberal pro-slavery
majorities at the elections, and their personal services were available
at all times, for the preservation of peace and order in the Territory;
as well as to enforce, by force, a proper respect for the dignity of
the Territorial officers, and for the authority of the Legislature
itself.
A revolt against these superimposed attentions, organized and led by
Charles Robinson, became the thorn that rankled in the pro-slavery
flesh, and led to the discomfiture and defeat of the Slave-State
propaganda. Robinson had the temerity to challenge the subtile logic of
the revolver and bowie-knife in determining the qualifications of
Territorial electors. His dissent, at first, took the mild form of a
petition to Governor Reeder, after the election of November 29, 1854.
asking that "the entire vote of the districts receiving the votes of
citizens of Missouri, be set aside; or that the entire election be set
aside." After a brutal usurpation of the polls, at the election for
members of the Territorial Legislature, March 30, 1855, a Legislature
which, under the organic act could determine whether the State should be
Free or Slave, Robinson again protested and sought redress of the
spoilation of the squatters' rights: and, failing to obtain justice,
united the Free-State men in a revolt against the authority of the
Territorial Legislature, and in a determination to repudiate the laws it
intended lawlessly to enact. Also, what had still greater significance,
he organized his followers into military companies to resist, by force
of arms, any further infringement upon their rights. Answering his call
to duty, the Free-State men of Lawrence and vicinity led the nation in
this crisis in public affairs, making its history, and directing its
destiny. It was the hour of Destiny. Sending for a second consignment of
Sharp's rifles, Robinson wrote these impressive and heroic words:
We are in the midst of a revolution, as you will see by the
papers. How we shall come out of the furnace, God only
knows. That we have got to enter it, some of us, there is
no doubt; but we are ready to be offered.
In haste very respectfully, Yours, for freedom for a world,
C. ROBINSON.
The organization of a military force by the Free-State men, gave to the
Free-State party a solidarity and prestige it had not theretofore
enjoyed. It at once became a popular party; and encouraged by daily
accessions to its ranks by immigration, combined with a prospective
certainty of becoming the majority party, it became bravely aggressive,
and boldly launched its campaign for Free-State supremacy. In
furtherance of their plan of campaign, the Free-State men adopted a
constitution for a Free State, and organized and put into effect a full
fledged State Government in opposition to the existing Territorial
Government; and under it, with Charles Robinson as Governor, sought
admission into the Union. Only a wise and courageous leadership combined
with a high order of executive ability, could successfully handle the
delicate problems involved in this complicated program. The leadership
required the necessary tact to unite and reconcile divergent convictions
and opinions, within the party, upon questions of principle as well as
of policy; it also required prudence to restrain the impetuous, and to
avoid complications which, at any time, might make shipwreck of the
cause.
The results accomplished by the Free-State settlers during the first two
years of their occupation of the Territory, amply justified the generous
congratulations in which they indulged. They had, wisely, withdrawn from
under the fire of an arrogant, domineering majority, and, in their
segregation, were surely creating a State to their own liking, in their
own way. They matched their wits against the management of their
political opponents, and were more than satisfied with the dilemma in
which the situation placed them. It became plainly evident that unless
the Free-State organizations, civil and military, were utterly destroyed
and further immigration from the North retarded, the Free-State cause
would certainly succeed. The situation, therefore, demanded the adoption
of more strenuous methods in dealing with it than could be approved by
the National Administration.
What they had failed to accomplish by "peaceful" methods, the
pro-slavery junta now sought to gain by the execution of more radical
measures. They accordingly organized an "Army of Invasion," and the
Wakarusa War of 1855 became an historical incident. They indicted the
Free-State Governor, Robinson, and the more prominent Free-State men,
for "constructive" treason; arrested them, and put them in prison. In
May, 1856, under cover of judicial authority, the town of Lawrence was
looted and burned. The Free-State Legislature that had been elected,
assembled at Topeka, only to be dispersed, July 4th, by the armed forces
of the United States. A blockade of the Missouri River was declared
against Free-State immigrants, and made effective. They also attempted,
without success, to cut off communications between Kansas and the
Northern States, which the Free-State men had opened up, via Iowa and
Nebraska. They murdered Dow, and Barber, and Brown, and Stewart, and
Jones, and Hoyt.
A third, and the final invasion, closed this chapter of heroic
undertakings and lamentable failures. September 14, 1856, their army,
2800 strong, occupied Franklin. During the night, Lieutenant Colonel
Joseph E. Johnston, U. S. Army, with a battalion of cavalry and a
section of artillery, arrived at Lawrence. Placing his battery in
position on Mount Oread, the muzzles of his guns pointing toward
Franklin, and deploying his cavalry in the valley in front of the town,
he awaited the crisis developing in the pro-slavery situation. On the
morning of the 15th, the newly appointed Territorial Governor, John W.
Geary, accompanied by Lieutenant Colonel Philip St. George Cooke, U. S.
Army, arrived upon the scene from Lecompton. After a short conversation
with Governor Robinson, they rode out to interview the invaders. It was
the hour of fate. A brief conference with General Atchison was held in
front of Atchison's lines; and then, it was all over; the Federal
Government had intervened. The campaign of violence had failed, and with
it expired the last substantial hope of the pro-slavery managers that
the balance of power between the warring sections of the country could
be restored. Upon receiving Governor Geary's ultimatum: that he must
retire with his forces from the Territory, immediately, Atchison turned
the head of his column toward Missouri. Arriving at Westport, he
disbanded his army and gave up the struggle. Buford returned to Alabama
and Jackson to Georgia. That Kansas would be a _Free State_ was
practically assured from that hour.
Involved in the corollary of the Free-State victory were the startling
incidents in history that followed in quick succession, culminating in
the stupendous tragedies of war. Mr. F. B. Sanborn said:[79]
Had Kansas in the death struggle of 1856 fallen a prey to
the slave holders, slave-holding would today be the law of
our imperial democracy. The sanctions of the Union and the
Constitution would now be on the side of human slavery, as
they were from 1840 to 1860.
The question of slavery domination must and will be fought
out on the plains of Kansas.[80]
Kansas must be a Slave State or the Union will be
dissolved.... If Kansas is not made a Slave State, it
requires no sage to foretell that there will never be
another Slave State.[81]
Slavery in South Carolina is dependent upon its
establishment in Kansas.[82]
The Touch-stone of our political existence is Kansas.[83]
Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama stand pledged to secede
from the Union, should Kansas applying for admission as a
slave state be refused admission.[84]
The question is one of life or death to the South upon the
simple alternative of the admission or rejection of Kansas
with her slave constitution.[85]
That American is little to be envied who can speak lightly
of the decisive contest in Kansas between the two
antagonistic civilizations of this continent. Either he
does not love his country, or he is incapable of
understanding her history.[86]