I.

I undertake, in the first place, to expose the CRIME AGAINST KANSAS, in

origin and extent. Logically this is the beginning of the argument. I

say Crime, and deliberately adopt this strongest term, as better than

any other denoting the consummate transgression. I would go further,

if language could further go. It is the _Crime of Crimes_,--surpassing

far the old _Crimen Majestatis_, pursued with vengeance by the laws

of Rome, and containing all other crimes, as the greater contains the

less. I do not go too far, when I call it the _Crime against Nature_,

from which the soul recoils, and which language refuses to describe.

To lay bare this enormity I now proceed. The whole subject has become

a twice-told tale, and its renewed recital will be a renewal of sorrow

and shame; but I shall not hesitate. The occasion requires it from the

beginning.

It is well remarked by a distinguished historian of our country, that,

“at the Ithuriel touch of the Missouri discussion, the Slave Interest,

hitherto hardly recognized as a distinct element in our system, started

up portentous and dilated,”[66] with threats and assumptions which are

the origin of our existing national politics. This was in 1820. The

debate ended with the admission of Missouri as a Slaveholding State,

and the prohibition of Slavery in all the remaining territory west of

the Mississippi and north of 36° 30´, leaving the condition of other

territory south of this line, or subsequently acquired, untouched by

the arrangement. Here was a solemn act of legislation, called at the

time compromise, covenant, compact, first brought forward in this

body by a slaveholder, vindicated in debate by slaveholders, finally

sanctioned by slaveholding votes,--also upheld at the time by the

essential approbation of a slaveholding President, James Monroe, and

his Cabinet, of whom a majority were slaveholders, including Mr.

Calhoun himself; and this compromise was made the condition of the

admission of Missouri, without which that State could not have been

received into the Union. The bargain was simple, and was applicable,

of course, only to the territory named. Leaving all other territory

to await the judgment of another generation, the South said to the

North, Conquer your prejudices so far as to admit Missouri as a Slave

State, and, in consideration of this much coveted boon, Slavery shall

be prohibited “forever” (mark here the word “_forever_”)[67] in all the

remaining Louisiana Territory above 36° 30´; and the North yielded.

In total disregard of history, the President, in his annual message,

tells us that this compromise “was _reluctantly_ acquiesced in by

Southern States.” Just the contrary is true. It was the work of

slaveholders, and by their concurring votes was crowded upon a

reluctant North. It was hailed by slaveholders as a victory. Charles

Pinckney, of South Carolina, in an oft quoted letter, written at eight

o’clock on the night of its passage, says: “It is considered here by

the Slaveholding States as a great triumph.”[68] At the North it was

accepted as a defeat, and the friends of Freedom everywhere throughout

the country bowed their heads with mortification. Little did they know

the completeness of their disaster. Little did they dream that the

prohibition of Slavery in the territory, which was stipulated as the

price of their fatal capitulation, would also, at the very moment of

its maturity, be wrested from them.

Time passed, and it became necessary to provide for this territory an

organized government. Suddenly, without notice in the public press, or

the prayer of a single petition, or one word of open recommendation

from the President, after an acquiescence of thirty-four years, and

the irreclaimable possession by the South of its special share under

this compromise, in breach of every obligation of honor, compact, and

good neighborhood, and in contemptuous disregard of the outgushing

sentiments of an aroused North, this time-honored Prohibition--in

itself a Landmark of Freedom--was overturned, and the vast region now

known as Kansas and Nebraska was opened to Slavery. It is natural that

a measure thus repugnant in character should be pressed by arguments

mutually repugnant. It was urged on two principal reasons, so opposite

and inconsistent as to fight with each other: one being, that, by the

repeal of the Prohibition, the Territory would be left open to the

entry of slaveholders with their slaves, without hindrance; and the

other being, that the people would be left absolutely free to determine

the question for themselves, and to prohibit the entry of slaveholders

with their slaves, if they should think best. With some the apology

was the alleged rights of slaveholders; with others it was the alleged

rights of the people. With some it was openly the extension of Slavery;

and with others it was openly the establishment of Freedom, under the

guise of Popular Sovereignty. The measure, thus upheld in defiance of

reason, was carried through Congress in defiance of all securities of

legislation. These things I mention that you may see in what foulness

the present Crime was engendered.

It was carried, _first_, by _whipping in_, through Executive influence

and patronage, men who acted against their own declared judgment and

the known will of their constituents; _secondly_, by _thrusting out

of place_, both in the Senate and House of Representatives, important

business, long pending, and usurping its room; _thirdly_, by _trampling

under foot_ the rules of the House of Representatives, always before

the safeguard of the minority; and, _fourthly_, by _driving it to a

close_ during the very session in which it originated, so that it

might not be arrested by the indignant voice of the People. Such are

some of the means by which this snap judgment was obtained. If the

clear will of the people had not been disregarded, it could not have

passed. If the Government had not nefariously interposed, it could not

have passed. If it had been left to its natural place in the order of

business, it could not have passed. If the rules of the House and the

rights of the minority had not been violated, it could not have passed.

If it had been allowed to go over to another Congress, when the People

might be heard, it would have been ended; and then the Crime we now

deplore would have been without its first seminal life.

Mr. President, I mean to keep absolutely within the limits of

parliamentary propriety. I make no personal imputations, but only

with frankness, such as belongs to the occasion and my own character,

describe a great historical act, now enrolled in the Capitol. Sir, the

Nebraska Bill was in every respect a swindle. It was a swindle of the

North by the South. On the part of those who had already completely

enjoyed their share of the Missouri Compromise, it was a swindle

of those whose share was yet absolutely untouched; and the plea of

unconstitutionality set up--like the plea of usury after the borrowed

money has been enjoyed--did not make it less a swindle. Urged as a

bill of peace, it was a swindle of the whole country. Urged as opening

the doors to slave-masters with their slaves, it was a swindle of

Popular Sovereignty in its asserted doctrine. Urged as sanctioning

Popular Sovereignty, it was a swindle of slave-masters in their

asserted rights. It was a swindle of a broad territory, thus cheated

of protection against Slavery. It was a swindle of a great cause,

early espoused by Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson, surrounded by

the best fathers of the Republic. Sir, it was a swindle of God-given,

inalienable rights. Turn it over, look at it on all sides, and it

is everywhere a swindle; and if the word I now employ has not the

authority of classical usage, it has, on this occasion, the indubitable

authority of fitness. No other word will adequately express the mingled

meanness and wickedness of the cheat.

Its character is still further apparent in the general structure

of the bill. Amidst overflowing professions of regard for the

sovereignty of the people in the Territory, they are despoiled of every

essential privilege of sovereignty. They are not allowed to choose

Governor, Secretary, Chief Justice, Associate Justices, Attorney, or

Marshal,--all of whom are sent from Washington; nor are they allowed

to regulate the salaries of any of these functionaries, or the daily

allowance of the legislative body, or even the pay of the clerks

and door-keepers: but they are left free to adopt Slavery. And this

is nicknamed Popular Sovereignty! Time does not allow, nor does the

occasion require, that I should stop to dwell on this transparent

device to cover a transcendent wrong. Suffice it to say, that Slavery

is in itself an arrogant denial of human rights, and by no human reason

can the power to establish such a wrong be placed among the attributes

of any just sovereignty. In refusing it such a place, I do not deny

popular rights, but uphold them, I do not restrain popular rights, but

extend them. And, Sir, to this conclusion you must yet come, unless

deaf, not only to the admonitions of political justice, but also to the

genius of our Constitution, under which, when properly interpreted,

no valid claim for Slavery can be set up anywhere in the National

territory. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. CASS] may say, in response

to the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. BROWN], that Slavery cannot

go into the Territory, under the Constitution, without legislative

introduction; and permit me to add, in response to both, that Slavery

cannot go there at all. _Nothing can come out of nothing_; and there

is absolutely nothing in the Constitution out of which Slavery can be

derived, while there are provisions, which, when properly interpreted,

make its existence anywhere within the exclusive National jurisdiction

impossible.

The offensive provision in the bill is in its form a legislative

anomaly, utterly wanting the natural directness and simplicity of an

honest transaction. It does not undertake openly to repeal the old

Prohibition of Slavery, but seems to mince the matter, as if conscious

of the swindle. It says that this Prohibition, “being inconsistent

with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with Slavery in

the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850,

commonly called the Compromise Measures, is hereby declared inoperative

and void.” Thus, with insidious ostentation, is it pretended that an

act violating the greatest compromise of our legislative history,

and loosening the foundations of all compromise, is derived out of a

compromise. Then follows in the bill the further declaration, entirely

without precedent, which has been aptly called “a stump speech in its

belly,” namely, “it being the true intent and meaning of this act not

to legislate Slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it

therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and

regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to

the Constitution of the United States.”[69] Here are smooth words, such

as belong to a cunning tongue enlisted in a bad cause. But whatever

may have been their various hidden meanings, this at least is evident,

that, by their effect, the Congressional prohibition of Slavery, which

had always been regarded as a seven-fold shield, covering the whole

Louisiana Territory north of 36° 30´, is now removed, while a principle

is declared which renders the supplementary prohibition of Slavery in

Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington “inoperative and void,” and thus

opens to Slavery all these vast regions, now the rude cradles of

mighty States. Here you see the magnitude of the mischief contemplated.

But my purpose is with the Crime against Kansas, and I shall not stop

to expose the conspiracy beyond.

Mr. President, men are wisely presumed to intend the natural

consequences of their conduct, and to seek what their acts seem to

promote. Now the Nebraska Bill, on its very face, openly clears the

way for Slavery, and it is not wrong to presume that its originators

intended the natural consequences of such an act, and sought in this

way to extend Slavery. Of course they did. And this is the first stage

in the Crime against Kansas.

This was speedily followed by other developments. It was soon whispered

that Kansas must be a Slave State. In conformity with this barefaced

scheme was the Government of this unhappy Territory organized in all

its departments; and thus did the President, by whose complicity

the Prohibition of Slavery was overthrown, lend himself to a new

complicity,--giving to the conspirators a lease of connivance,

amounting even to copartnership. The Governor, Secretary, Chief

Justice, Associate Justices, Attorney, and Marshal, with a whole caucus

of other stipendiaries, nominated by the President and confirmed by

the Senate, are all commended as friendly to Slavery. No man with the

sentiments of Washington or Jefferson or Franklin finds favor; nor

is it too much to say, that, had these great patriots once more come

among us, not one of them, with his recorded, unretracted opinions on

Slavery, could be nominated by the President or confirmed by the Senate

for any post in that Territory. With such auspices the conspiracy

proceeded. Even in advance of the Nebraska Bill, secret societies

were organized in Missouri, ostensibly to protect her institutions,

and afterwards, under the name of “Self-Defensive Associations” and

“Blue Lodges,” these were multiplied throughout the western counties

of that State, _before any counter movement from the North_. It was

confidently anticipated, that, by the activity of these societies, and

the interest of slaveholders everywhere, with the advantage derived

from the neighborhood of Missouri and the influence of the Territorial

Government, Slavery might be introduced into Kansas, quietly, but

surely, without arousing conflict,--that the crocodile egg might

be stealthily dropped in the sunburnt soil, there to be hatched,

unobserved until it sent forth its reptile monster.

But the conspiracy was unexpectedly balked. The debate, which convulsed

Congress, stirred the whole country. From all sides attention was

directed upon Kansas, which at once became the favorite goal of

emigration. The bill loudly declares that its object is “to leave

the people perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic

institutions in their own way”; and its supporters everywhere challenge

the determination of the question between Freedom and Slavery by

a competition of emigration. Thus, while opening the Territory to

Slavery, the bill also opens it to emigrants from every quarter, who

may by votes redress the wrong. The populous North, stung by sense of

outrage, and inspired by a noble cause, are pouring into the debatable

land, and promise soon to establish a supremacy of numbers there,

involving, of course, a just supremacy of Freedom.

Then was conceived the consummation of the Crime against Kansas. What

could not be accomplished peaceably was to be accomplished forcibly.

The reptile monster, that could not be quietly and securely hatched

there, is to be pushed full-grown into the Territory. All efforts are

now applied to the dismal work of forcing Slavery upon Free Soil.

In flagrant derogation of the very Popular Sovereignty whose name

helped to impose this bill upon the country, the atrocious object is

distinctly avowed. And the avowal is followed by the act. Slavery is

forcibly introduced into Kansas, and placed under formal safeguard of

pretended law. How this is done belongs to the argument.

In depicting this consummation, the simplest outline, without one word

of color, will be best. Whether regarded in mass or detail, in origin

or result, it is all blackness, illumined by nothing from itself, but

only by the heroism of the undaunted men and women whom it environed. A

plain statement of facts is a picture of direst truth, which faithful

History will preserve in its darkest gallery. In the foreground all

will recognize a familiar character, in himself connecting link between

President and border ruffian,--less conspicuous for ability than for

the exalted place he has occupied,--who once sat in the seat where you

now sit, Sir,--where once sat John Adams and Thomas Jefferson,--also,

where once sat Aaron Burr. I need not add the name of David R.

Atchison.[70] You do not forget, that, at the session of Congress

immediately succeeding the Nebraska Bill, he came tardily to his duty

here, and then, after a short time, disappeared. The secret was long

since disclosed. Like Catiline, he stalked into this Chamber, reeking

with conspiracy,--_immo etiam in Senatum venit_,--and then, like

Catiline, he skulked away,--_abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit_,--to join

and provoke the conspirators, who at a distance awaited their congenial

chief. Under the influence of his malign presence the Crime ripened

to its fatal fruits, while the similitude with Catiline is again

renewed in the sympathy, not even concealed, which he finds in the very

Senate itself, where, beyond even the Roman example, a Senator has not

hesitated to appear as his open compurgator.

And now, as I proceed to show the way in which this Territory was

overrun and finally subjugated to Slavery, I desire to remove, in

advance, all question with regard to the authority on which I rely. The

evidence is secondary, but it is the best which, in the nature of the

case, can be had; and it is not less clear, direct, and peremptory than

any by which we are assured of the campaigns in the Crimea or the fall

of Sebastopol. In its manifold mass, I confidently assert that it is

such a body of evidence as the human mind is not able to resist. It is

found in the concurring reports of the public press, in the letters of

correspondents, in the testimony of travellers, and in the unaffected

story to which I have listened from leading citizens, who, during

this winter, have “come flocking” here from that distant Territory.

It breaks forth in the irrepressible outcry, reaching us from Kansas,

whose truthful tones leave no ground of mistake. It addresses us in

formal complaint, instinct with the indignation of a people determined

to be free, and unimpeachable as the declarations of a murdered man

on his dying-bed against his murderer. And let me add, that all this

testimony finds echo in the very statute-book of the conspirators, and

also in language dropped from the President of the United States.

I begin with an admission from the President himself, in whose sight

the people of Kansas have little favor. After arraigning the innocent

emigrants from the North, he is constrained to declare that their

conduct is “far from justifying the _illegal_ and _reprehensible_

counter movements which ensued.”[71] By the reluctant admission of the

Chief Magistrate, then, there was a counter movement at once “_illegal_

and _reprehensible_.” I thank thee, President, for teaching me these

words; and I now put them in the front of this exposition, as in

themselves a confession. Sir, this “illegal and reprehensible counter

movement” is none other than the dreadful Crime--under an apologetic

_alias_--by which, through successive invasions, Slavery is forcibly

planted in this Territory.

Next to this Presidential admission must be placed details of

invasions, which I now present as not only “illegal and reprehensible,”

but also unquestionable evidence of the resulting Crime.

The violence, for some time threatened, broke forth on the 29th of

November, 1854, at the first election of a Delegate to Congress,

when companies from Missouri, amounting to upwards of one thousand,

crossed into Kansas, and with force and arms proceeded to vote for

General Whitfield, the candidate of Slavery. An eye-witness, General

Pomeroy,[72] of superior intelligence and perfect integrity, thus

describes this scene.

“The first ballot-box that was opened upon our virgin soil

was closed to us by overpowering numbers and impending force.

So bold and reckless were our invaders, that they cared not to

conceal their attack. They came upon us, not in the guise of

voters, to steal away our franchise, but boldly and openly, to

snatch it with a strong hand. They came directly from their own

homes, and in compact and organized bands, with arms in hand

and provisions for the expedition, marched to our polls, and,

when their work was done, returned whence they came.”

Here was an outrage at which the coolest blood of patriotism boils.

Though, for various reasons unnecessary to develop, the busy settlers

allowed the election to pass uncontested, still the means employed were

none the less “illegal and reprehensible.”

This infliction was a significant prelude to the grand invasion of

the 30th of March, 1855, at the election of the first Territorial

Legislature under the organic law, when an armed multitude from

Missouri entered the Territory in larger numbers than General Taylor

commanded at Buena Vista, or than General Jackson had within his lines

at New Orleans,--much larger than our fathers rallied on Bunker Hill.

On they came as “an army with banners,” organized in companies, with

officers, munitions, tents, and provisions, as though marching upon a

foreign foe, and breathing loud-mouthed threats that they would carry

their purpose, if need were, by the bowie-knife and revolver. Among

them, according to his own confession, was David R. Atchison, belted

with the vulgar arms of his vulgar comrades. Arrived at their several

destinations on the night before the election, the invaders pitched

their tents, placed their sentries, and waited for the coming day. The

same trustworthy eye-witness whom I have already quoted says of one

locality:--

“Baggage-wagons were there, with arms and ammunition enough

for a protracted fight, and among them two brass field-pieces,

ready charged. They came with drums beating and flags flying,

and their leaders were of the most prominent and conspicuous

men of their State.”