No southern or slaveholding State has ever attempted to colo

ADDRESS

TO THE

PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES,

TOGETHER WITH THE

PROCEEDINGS AND RESOLUTIONS

OF THE

PRO-SLAVERY CONVENTION

OF MISSOURI,

HELD AT LEXINGTON,

JULY, 1855.

ST. LOUIS, MO.

PRINTED AT THE REPUBLICAN OFFICE.

1855.

ADDRESS.

TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

We have been appointed by a Convention of citizens of Missouri, mainly

representing that portion of the State lying contiguous to the Territory

of Kansas, to lay before you some suggestions, upon a topic which

vitally concerns our State, and which, it is believed, may to a serious

extent affect the general welfare of our country.

We propose to discharge this duty by a concise and candid exposition of

facts, touching our condition, and its bearing upon Kansas, accompanied

with such reflections as the facts naturally suggest.

That portion of Missouri which borders on Kansas contains, as nearly as

can now be ascertained, a population of fifty thousand slaves, and their

estimated value, at the prices prevailing here, is about twenty-five

millions of dollars. As the whole State contains but about one hundred

thousand slaves, it will be seen that one-half of the entire slave

population of Missouri is located in the eighteen counties bordering on

Kansas, the greater portion of which is separated from that Territory by

no natural boundary, and is within a day's ride of the line. This part

of our State is distinguished by an uniform fertility of soil, a

temperate and healthful climate, and a population progressing rapidly in

all the elements that constitute a prosperous community. Agriculture is

in a most flourishing condition, and the towns and villages which have

sprung up, indicate a steady progress towards wealth, refinement and

commercial importance. Nor have the higher interests of education,

religion and science, been neglected; but common schools, and

respectable institutions of a higher grade, and churches of every

Christian denomination, are found in every county. The great staple of

this district is hemp, although tobacco, and corn, and wheat are also

largely produced. The culture of hemp has been found profitable,--more

so than cotton in the South; and this fact, with the additional ones,

that almost every foot of land within the counties alluded to, is

wonderfully adapted by nature to its production, in greater quantities,

and finer qualities, and at smaller cost, than in any other State in the

Union, and that the climate is such as to permit the growers of this

article to reside on their estates, will readily explain and account for

the unexampled growth of the country. Already it constitutes the most

densely populated portion of our State, and its remarkable fertility of

soil, and general salubrity of climate, with the facilities for outlet

furnished by a noble river, running through its midst, and two great

railroads, destined soon to traverse its upper and lower border, will

render it at no distant period, if left undisturbed, as desirable and

flourishing a district as can be found in the Mississippi Valley.

An idea has to some extent prevailed abroad, that Missouri contained but

a very small slave population, and that the permanence of this

institution here was threatened by the existence of at least a

respectable minority of her citizens, ready and anxious to abolish it,

and that only a slight external pressure was necessary to accomplish

this purpose. We regret that this opinion has to some extent received

countenance from the publication and patronage of journals in our

commercial metropolis, evidently aiming at such a result. Without,

however, going into any explanation of political parties here, which

would be entirely foreign to our purpose, we think it proper to state,

that the idea above alluded to is unfounded; and that no respectable

party can be found in this State, outside of St. Louis, prepared to

embark in any such schemes. In that city, constituting the great outlet

of our commerce, as well as that of several other States and

Territories, it will not seem surprising that its heterogeneous

population should furnish a foothold for the wildest and most visionary

projects. St. Louis was, however, represented in our Convention, and it

is not thought unwarrantable to assume that the resolutions adopted by

this body have received the cordial approbation of a large and

influential portion of her citizens. Other counties, besides St. Louis,

outside of the district to which our observations have been principally

directed, were also represented by delegates; and had not the season of

the year, the short notice of its intended session, and the locality

where the Convention was held--remote from the centre of the

State--prevented, we doubt not that delegates from every county in the

State would have been in attendance. Indeed, a portion of the upper

Mississippi and lower Mississippi counties are as deeply, though less

directly interested in this question, as any part of this State; and

their citizens are known to accord most heartily in the sentiments and

actions of Western Missouri. Even in the south-west part of our State,

from the Osage to the borders of Arkansas, where there are but few

slaves, the proceedings of public meetings indicate the entire and

active sympathy of their people. From the general tone of the public

press throughout the State, a similar inference is deducible, and, we

feel warranted in asserting, a very general, if not unanimous

concurrence in the principles adopted by the Lexington Convention. Those

principles are embodied in a series of resolutions appended to this

address, and which, we are happy to say, were adopted with entire

unanimity, by a body representing every shade of political opinion to be

found in the interior of our State. These facts are conclusive of the

condition of public sentiment in Missouri. The probabilities of changes

here in reference to the question of slavery, are not essentially

different from what they are in Tennessee, or Virginia, or Kentucky. In

relation to numbers, a reference to the census shows that Missouri

contains double the number of Arkansas, nearly double the number of

Texas, and about an equal number with Maryland.

These facts are stated with a view to a proper understanding of our

position in reference to the settlement of Kansas, and the legitimate

and necessary interest felt in the progress and character of that

settlement. Previous to the repeal of the Congressional restriction of

1820, by which Missouri was thrown into an isolated position in

reference to the question of slavery, and made a solitary exception to a

general rule, her condition in regard to the territory west of her

border, and yet north of the geographical line which Congress had fixed

as the terminus of Southern institutions, was truly unenviable. With two

States on her northern and eastern border, in many portions of which the

Constitution of the United States, and the Fugitive Slave Law, passed in

pursuance thereof, were known to be as inefficacious for the protection

of our rights as they would have been in London or Canada, it was left

to the will of Congress, by enforcing the restriction of 1820, to cut

Missouri off almost entirely from all territorial connexion with States

having institutions congenial to her own, and with populations ready and

willing to protect and defend them. No alternative was left to that body

but to repeal the restriction, and thus leave to the Constitution and

the laws of nature, the settlement of our territories, or, by retaining

the restriction, indirectly to abolish slavery in Missouri. If the

latter alternative had to be selected, it would have been an act of

charity and mercy to the slaveholders of Missouri, to warn them in time

of the necessity of abandoning their homes, or manumitting or selling

their slaves--to give them ample time to determine between the sacrifice

of fifty millions of slave property, or seventy millions of landed

estate. Direct legislation would have been preferable to indirect

legislation, leading to the same result, and the enforcement of the

restriction in the settlement of Kansas was virtually the abolition of

slavery in Missouri. But Congress acted more wisely, as we think, and

with greater fidelity to the Constitution and the Union.

The history of the Kansas-Nebraska bill is known to the country. It

abolished the geographical line of 36 deg. 30 min., by which the limits

of slavery were restricted, and substituted a constitutional and just

principle, which left to the settlers of the territories to adopt such

domestic institutions as suited themselves. If ever there was a

principle calculated to commend itself to all reasonable men, and

reconcile all conflicting interests, this would seem to have been the

one. It was the principle of popular sovereignty--the basis upon which

our independence had been achieved--and it was therefore supposed to be

justly dear to all Americans, of every latitude and every creed. But

fanaticism was not satisfied. The abolitionists and their allies moved

heaven and earth to accomplish its defeat, and although unsuccessful,

they did not therefore despair. Out-voted in Congress, receiving no

countenance from the Executive, they retired to another theatre of

action, and, strange to say, they prostituted an ancient and respectable

Commonwealth--one of the Old Thirteen--to commence, in her sovereign

capacity as a State, with the means and imposing attitude incident to

such a position, a crusade against slavery, novel in its character, more

alarming in its features, and likely to be more fatal in its

consequences, than all the fanatical movements hitherto attempted, since

the appearance of abolitionism as a political party in 1835. They

originated and matured a scheme, never before heard of or thought of in

this country, the object and effect of which was to evade the principle

of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and in lieu of _non-intervention by

Congress_, to substitute _active intervention by the States_. An act of

incorporation was passed; a company with a capital of five millions was

chartered; and this company was authorized to enlist an army of

mercenary fanatics, and transport them to Kansas. Recruiting officers

were stationed in places most likely to furnish the proper material;

premiums were offered for recruits; the public mind was stimulated by

glowing and false descriptions of the country proposed to be occupied,

and a _Hessian_ band of mercenaries was thus prepared and forwarded, to

commence and carry on a war of extermination against slavery.

To call these people _emigrants_, is a sheer perversion of language.

They are not sent to cultivate the soil, to better their social

condition, to add to their individual comforts, or the aggregate wealth

of the nation. They do not move from choice or taste, or from any motive

affecting, or supposed to affect, themselves or their families. They

have none of the marks of the old pioneers, who cut down the forests of

Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana, or levelled the cane brakes of Tennessee and

Mississippi, or broke up the plains of Illinois and Missouri. They are

mostly ignorant of agriculture; picked up in cities or villages, they of

course have no experience as farmers, and if left to their unaided

resources--if not clothed and fed by the same power which has effected

their transportation--they would starve or freeze. They are

_hirelings_--an army of hirelings--recruited and shipped indirectly by a

sovereign state of this Union, to make war upon an institution _now_

existing in the Territory to which they are transplanted, and thence to

inflict a fatal blow upon the resources, the prosperity and the peace of

a neighboring State. They are _military_ colonies, planted by a State

government, to subdue a territory opened to settlement by Congress, and

take exclusive possession thereof. In addition to that _esprit du

corps_, which of necessity pervades such an organization, they have in

common a reckless and desperate fanaticism, which teaches them that

slavery is a sin, and that they are doing God's service in hastening its

destruction. They have been picked and culled from the ignorant masses,

which Old England and New England negro philanthropy has stirred up and

aroused to madness on this topic, and have been selected with reference

to their views on this topic alone. They are men with a single idea; and

to carry out this, they have been instructed and taught to disregard the

laws of God and man; to consider bloodshed and arson, insurrection,

destruction of property, or servile war, as the merest trifles, compared

with the glory and honor of seducing a single slave from his master, or

harboring and protecting the thief who has carried him off!

That such a population would be fatal to the peace and security of the

neighboring State of Missouri, and immediate destruction of such owners

of slaves as had already moved to the Territory of Kansas, is too clear

to admit of argument. A horde of our western savages, with avowed

purposes of destruction to the white race, would be less formidable

neighbors.

The colonization of Kansas with a population of this character was a

circumstance which aroused attention, and excited alarm among our

citizens here, and those who had already emigrated to Kansas. Could any

other result have been expected? Did sensible men at the North--did the

abolitionists themselves, expect any other?

Missouri contained, as we have seen, one hundred thousand slaves, and

their value amounted to fifty millions of dollars. Had these fanatics

who pronounced slavery an individual sin, and a national curse, ever yet

pointed out any decently plausible scheme by which it could be removed?

The entire revenue of our State, for ordinary fiscal purposes, scarcely

reaches five hundred thousand dollars, and the abolition of slavery here

would involve the destruction of productive capital estimated at fifty

millions of dollars, or a taxation upon the people of five millions of

dollars annually, which is the legalized interest upon this amount of

capital, besides the additional tax which would be necessary to raise a

sinking fund to pay off the debt created. The Constitution of Missouri

prohibits the Legislature from passing laws emancipating slaves, without

a full compensation to their owners; and it is therefore apparent, that

ten-fold the entire revenue of the State would be barely sufficient to

pay the interest upon a sum equivalent to the actual moneyed value of

the slaves, without providing any means to extinguish the principal

which such a debt would create. We omit altogether, in this calculation,

the impracticability and impolicy and cruelty to both races, of

liberating the slaves here, with no provision for their removal, and the

additional debt which such removal would create, equal, in all

probability, to that occasioned by their mere emancipation. It would

seem then, that the merest glance at the statistical tables of our

State, showing its population and revenue, must have satisfied the most

sanguine abolitionist of the futility of his schemes. If the

investigation was pursued further, and our estimate was made to embrace

the three millions and a half of slaves now in the southern and

south-western States, and the billions to which our computation must

ascend in order to ascertain their value in money, this anti-slavery

crusade, which presents itself in a form of open aggression against the

white race, without the semblance or pretext of good to that race for

which the abolitionist professes so much regard, and which stands so

much higher in his affections than his own, is seen to be one of mere

folly and wickedness, or, what is perhaps worse, a selfish and sectional

struggle for political power.

It is a singular fact, and one worthy of notice in this connexion, that

in the history of African slavery up to this time, no government has

ever yet been known to abolish it, which fairly represented the

interests and opinions of the governed. Great Britain, it is true,

abolished slavery in Jamaica, but the planters of Jamaica had no

potential voice in the British Parliament. The abolition of slavery in

New England, and in the middle States, can hardly be cited as an

exception, since that abrogation was not so much the result of positive

legislation, as it was of natural causes--the unfitness of climate and

productions to slave labor. It is well known to those familiar with the

jurisprudence of this country, and of England, that slavery has been in

no instance created by positive statutory enactment, nor has it been

thus abolished in any country, when the popular will was paramount in

legislative action. Its existence and non-existence appears to depend

entirely upon causes beyond the reach of governmental action, and this

fact should teach some dependence upon the will of an overruling

Providence, which works out its ends in a mode, and at a time, not

always apparent to finite mortals.

The history of some of our slaveholding States, in relation to efforts

of this character, it would seem, ought to be conclusive, at least,

against those who have no actual interests involved, and whom a proper

sense of self-respect, if not of constitutional obligation, should

restrain from impertinent interference. Virginia in 1831, and Kentucky

more recently, were agitated from centre to circumference by a bold and

unrestricted discussion of the subject of emancipation. Upon the

hustings and in legislative assemblies, the subject was thoroughly

examined, and every project which genius or philanthropy could suggest,

was investigated. Brought forward in the Old Dominion, under the

sanction of names venerated and respected throughout the limits of the

commonwealth--well known to have been a cherished project of her most

distinguished statesmen--favored by the happening of a then recent

servile disturbance, and patronized by some of the most patriotic and

enlightened citizens, the scheme nevertheless failed, without a show of

strength or a step in advance towards the object contemplated. The

magnitude of the difficulties to be overcome was so great, and so

obvious, as to strike alike the emancipationists and their adversaries.

The result has been, both in Virginia and Kentucky, that slavery, to use

the language of one of Kentucky's eloquent and distinguished sons, and

one, too, of the foremost in the work of emancipation, "has been

accepted as a permanent part of their social system." Can it be that

there is a destitution of honesty--of intelligence--of patriotism and

piety in slaveholding States, and that these qualities are alone to be

found in Great Britain and the northern free States? If not, the

conclusion must be, that the difficulties in the way of such an

enterprise exceed all the calculations of statesmanship and philosophy;

and their removal must await the will of that Being, whose prerogative

it is to make crooked paths straight, and justify the ways of God to

man.

We have no thought of discussing the subject of slavery. Viewed in its

social, moral or economical aspects, it is regarded, as the resolutions

of the Convention declare, as solely and exclusively a matter of State

jurisdiction, and therefore, one which does not concern the Federal

Government, or the States where it does not exist. We have merely

adverted to the fact, in connexion with the recent abolition movements

upon Kansas, that amidst all their fierce denunciations of slavery for

twenty years past, these fanatics have never yet been able to suggest a

plan for its removal, consistent with the safety of the white

race--saying nothing of constitutional guarantees, Federal and State.

The colonization scheme of Massachusetts, as we have said, excited alarm

in Missouri. Its obvious design was to operate further than the mere

prevention of the natural expansion of slavery. It was intended to

narrow its existing limits,--to destroy all equilibrium of power between

the North and the South, and leave the slaveholder at the will of a

majority, ready to disregard constitutional obligations, and carry out

to their bitter end the mandates of ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.

Its success manifestly involved a radical change in our Federal

Government, or its total overthrow. If Kansas could be thus

abolitionized, every additional part of the present public domain

hereafter opened to settlement, and every future accession of territory,

would be the subject of similar experiments, and an exploded Wilmot

Proviso thus virtually enforced throughout an extended domain still

claimed as _national_, and still bearing on its military ensigns the

stars and stripes of the Union. If the plan was constitutional and

legal, it must be conceded that it was skillfully contrived, and

admirably adapted to its ends. It was also eminently practicable, if no

resistance was encountered, since the States adopting it contained a

surplus population which could be bought up and shipped, whilst the

South, which had an interest in resisting, had no such people among her

white population. The Kansas-Nebraska law, too, which was so extremely

hateful to the fanatics, and has constituted the principal theme of

their recent denunciations, would be a dead letter, both as it regarded

the two Territories for which it was particularly framed, and as a

precedent to Congress for the opening of other districts to settlement.

The old Missouri restriction could have done no more, and the whole

purpose of the anti-slavery agitators, both in and out of Congress, was

quietly accomplished. But the scheme failed--as it deserved to fail; and

as the peace, prosperity, and union of our country required it should

fail. It was a scheme totally at variance with the genius of our

government, both State and Federal, and with the social institutions

which these governments were designed to protect, and its success would

have been as fatal to those who contrived it, as it could have been to

those intended to be its victims.

The circumstance of novelty is entitled to its weight in politics as

well as law. The abolition irruption upon Kansas is without precedent in

our history. Seventy-nine years of our national life have rolled by;

Territory after Territory has been annexed, or settled, and added to the

galaxy of States, until from thirteen we have increased to thirty-two;

yet it never before entered into the head of any statesman, North or

South, to devise a plan of acquiring exclusive occupation of a Territory

by State colonization. To Massachusetts belongs the honor of its

invention, and we trust she will survive its defeat. But, she is not the

Massachusetts, we must do justice to her past history to say, that she

was in the times of her Adams', her Hancocks, and her Warrens; nor yet

is she where she stood in more recent times, when her Websters, and

Choates, and Winthrops, led the van of her statesmen. Her legislative

halls are filled with ruthless fanatics, dead to the past and reckless

to the future; her statute books are polluted with enactments purporting

to annul the laws of Congress, passed in pursuance, and by reason of the

special requirements of the Constitution; and her senatorial chairs at

Washington are filled by a rhetorician and a bigot, one of whom studies

to disguise in the drapery of a classic elocution, the most hideous and

treasonable forms of fanaticism; whilst his colleague is pleased to

harangue a city rabble with open and unadulterated disunionism,

associated with the oracles of abolitionism and infidelity--a melancholy

spectacle to the descendants of the compatriots of Benjamin Franklin!

No southern or slaveholding State has ever attempted to colonize a

Territory. Our public lands have been left to the occupancy of such

settlers as soil and climate invited. The South has sent no armies to

force slave labor upon those who preferred free labor. Kentucky sprung

from Virginia, as did Tennessee from North Carolina, and Kansas will

from Missouri--from contiguity of territory, and similarity of climate.

Emigration has followed the parallels of latitude and will continue to

do so, unless diverted by such organizations as Emigrant Aid Societies

and Kansas Leagues.

It has been said that the citizens of Massachusetts have an undoubted

right to emigrate to Kansas; that this right may be exercised

individually, or in families, or in larger private associations; and

that associated enterprise, under the sanction of legislative

enactments, is but another and equally justifiable form of emigration.

Political actions, like those of individuals, must be judged by their

motives and effects. Unquestionably, emigration, both individual and

collective, from the free States to the South, and, _vice versa_, from

the slave States to the North, has been progressing from the foundation

of our government to the present day, without comment and without

objection. It is not pretended that such emigration, even if fostered by

State patronage, would be illegal, or in any respect objectionable. The

wide expanse of the fertile West, and the deserted wastes of the sunny

South, invite occupation; and no man, from the southern extremity of

Florida to the northern boundary of Missouri, has ever objected to an

emigrant simply because he was from the North, and preferred free labor

to that of slaves. Upon this subject he is allowed to consult his own

taste, convenience, and conscience; and it is expected that he will

permit his neighbors to exercise the same privilege. But, no one can

fail to distinguish between an honest, _bona fide_ emigration, prompted

by choice or necessity, and an organized colonization with offensive

purposes upon the institutions of the country proposed to be settled.

Nor can there be any doubt in which class to place the movements of

Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Societies and Kansas Leagues. Their motives

have been candidly avowed, and their objects boldly proclaimed

throughout the length and breadth of the land. Were this not the case,

it would still be impossible to mistake them. Why, we might well

enquire, if simple emigration was in view, are these extraordinary

efforts confined to the Territory of Kansas? Is Nebraska, which was

opened to settlement by the same law, less desirable, less inviting to

northern adventurers, than Kansas? Are Iowa, and Washington, and Oregon,

and Minnesota, and Illinois and Michigan, filled up with

population--their lands all occupied, and furnishing no room for

Massachusetts emigrants? Is Massachusetts herself overrun with

population--obliged to rid herself of paupers whom she cannot feed at

home? Or, is Kansas, as eastern orators have insinuated, a newly

discovered paradise--a modern El Dorado, where gold and precious stones

can be gathered at pleasure; or an Arcadia, where nature is so bountiful

as not to need the aid of man, and fruits and vegetables of every

desirable description spontaneously spring up?

There can be but one answer to these questions, and that answer shows

conclusively the spirit and intent of this miscalled and pretended

emigration. _It is an anti-slavery movement._ As such it was organized

and put in motion by an anti-slavery legislature; as such, the organized

army was equipped in Massachusetts, and transported to Kansas; and, as

such, it was met there and defeated.

If further illustration was needed of the illegality of these movements

upon Kansas, we might extend our observations to the probable reception

of similar movements upon a State. If the Massachusetts legislature, or

that of any other State, have the right to send an army of abolitionists

into Kansas, they have the same right to transport them to Missouri. We

are not apprised of any provisions in the constitutions or laws of the

States, which in this respect distinguishes their condition from that of

a territory. We have no laws, and we presume no slaveholding State has,

which forbids the emigration of non-slaveholders. Such laws, if passed,

would clearly conflict with the Federal Constitution. The southern and

south-western slaveholding States are as open to emigration from

non-slaveholding States as Kansas. They differ only in the price of land

and the density of population. Let us suppose, then, that Massachusetts

should turn her attention to Texas, and should ascertain that the

population of that State was nearly divided between those who favored

and those who opposed slavery, and that one thousand votes would turn

the scale in favor of emancipation, and, acting in accordance with her

world-wide philanthropy, she should resolve to transport the thousand

voters necessary to abolish slavery in Texas, how would such a movement

be received there? Or, to reverse the proposition, let it be supposed

that South Carolina, with her large slaveholding population, should

undertake to transport a thousand slaveholders to Delaware, with a view

to turn the scale in that State, now understood to be rapidly passing

over to the list of free States, would the gallant sons of that ancient

State, small as she is territorially, submit to such interference? Now,

the institutions of Kansas are as much fixed and as solemnly guaranteed

by statute, as those of Delaware or Texas. The laws of Kansas Territory

may be abrogated by succeeding legislatures; but, so also may the laws,

and even the constitutions, of Texas and Delaware. Kansas only differs

from their condition in her limited resources, her small population, and

her large amount of marketable lands. There is no difference in

principle between the cases supposed; if justifiable and legal in the

one, it is equally so in the other. They differ only in point of

practicability and expediency; the one would be an outrage, easily

perceived, promptly met, and speedily repelled; the other is disguised

under the forms of emigration, and meets with no populous and organized

community to resent it. We are apprised that it is said, that the Kansas

legislature was elected by fraud, and constitute no fair representation

of the opinions of the people of the Territory. This is evidently the

excuse of the losing party, to stimulate renewed efforts among their

friends at home; but even this is refuted by the record. The Territorial

Governor of Kansas, a gentleman not suspected of, or charged with

partiality to slavery or to its advocates, has solemnly certified under

his official seal, that the statement is false; that a large majority of

the legislature were duly and legally elected. Even in the districts

where Governor Reeder set aside the elections for illegality, the

subsequent returns of the special elections ordered by him, produced the

same result, except in a single district. There is, then, no pretext

left, and it is apparent, that to send an army of abolitionists to

Kansas to destroy slavery existing there, and recognized by her laws, is

no more to be justified on the part of the Massachusetts legislature,

than it would be to send a like force to Missouri, with the like

purposes. The object might be more easily and safely accomplished in the

one case than in the other, but in both cases it is equally repugnant to

every principle of international comity, and likely to prove equally

fatal to the harmony and peace of the Union.

We conclude, then, that this irruption upon Kansas by Emigrant Aid

Societies and Kansas Leagues, under the patronage of the Massachusetts

legislature, is to be regarded in no other light than a new phase of

abolitionism, more practical in its aims, and therefore more dangerous

than any form it has yet assumed. We have shown it to be at variance

with the true intent of the act of Congress, by which the Territory was

opened to settlement; at variance with the spirit of the Constitution of

the United States, and with the institutions of the Territory, already

recognized by law; totally destructive of that fellowship and good

feeling which should exist among citizens of confederated States;

ruinous to the security, peace and prosperity of a neighboring State;

unprecedented in our political annals up to this date, and pregnant with

the most disastrous consequences to the harmony and stability of the

Union. Thus far its purposes have been defeated; but renewed efforts are

threatened. Political conventions at the north and north-west have

declared for the repeal of the Kansas-Nebraska law, and, anticipating a

failure in this direction, are stimulating the anti-slavery sentiment to

fresh exertions, for abolitionizing Kansas after the Massachusetts

fashion. We have discharged our duty in declaring the light in which

such demonstrations are viewed here, and our firm belief of the spirit

by which they will be met. If civil war and ultimate disunion are

desired, a renewal of these efforts will be admirably adapted to such

purposes. Missouri has taken her position in the resolutions adopted by

the Lexington Convention, and from that position she will not be likely

to recede. It is based upon the Constitution--upon justice, and equality

of rights among the States. What she has done, and what she is still

prepared to do, is in self-defence and for self-preservation; and from

these duties she will hardly be expected to shrink. With her, everything

is at stake; the security of a large slave property, the prosperity of

her citizens, and their exemption from perpetual agitation and border

feuds; whilst the emissaries of abolition are pursuing a phantom--an

abstraction, which, if realized, could add nothing to their possessions

or happiness, and would be productive of decided injury to the race for

whose benefit they profess to labor. If slavery is an evil, and it is

conceded that Congress cannot interfere with it in the States, it is

most manifest that its diffusion through a new territory, where land is

valueless and labor productive, tends greatly to ameliorate the

condition of the slaves. Opposition to the extension of slavery is not,

then, founded upon any philanthropic views, or upon any love for the

slave. It is a mere grasp for political power, beyond what the

Constitution of the United States concedes; and it is so understood by

the leaders of the movement. And this additional power is not desired

for constitutional purposes--for the advancement of the general welfare,

or the national reputation. For such purposes the majority in the North

is already sufficient, and no future events are likely to diminish it.

The slaveholding States are in a minority, but so far, a minority which

has commanded respect in the national councils. It has answered, and we

hope will continue to subserve the purposes of self-protection.

Conservative men from other quarters have come up to the rescue, when

the rights of the South have been seriously threatened. But it is

essential to the purposes of self-preservation, that this minority

should not be materially weakened; it is essential to the preservation

of our present form of government, that the slave States should retain

sufficient power to make effectual resistance against outward aggression

upon an institution peculiar to them alone. Parchment guarantees, as all

history shows, avail nothing against an overwhelming public clamor. The

fate of the Fugitive Slave Law affords an instructive warning on the

subject, and shows that the most solemn constitutional obligations will

be evaded or scorned, where popular prejudice resists their execution.

The South must rely on herself for protection, and to this end her

strength in the Federal Government cannot be safely diminished.

If indeed it be true, as public men at the North have declared, and

political assemblages have endorsed, that a determination has been

reached in that quarter to refuse admission to any more slave States,

there is an end to all argument on the subject. To reject Kansas, or any

other Territory from the Union, simply and solely because slavery is

recognized within her limits, would be regarded here, and, we presume,

throughout the South and South-west, as an open repudiation of the

Constitution--a distinct and unequivocal step towards a dissolution of

the Union. We presume it would be so regarded everywhere, North and

South. Taken in connexion with the abrogation of that provision of the

Constitution which enforces the rights of the owners of slaves in all

the States of the Union, into which they might escape, which has been

effected _practically_ throughout nearly all the free States, and more

formally by solemn legislative enactments in a portion of them, the

rejection of Kansas on account of slavery would be disunion in a form of

grossest insult to the sixteen slave States now comprehended in the

nation. It would be a declaration that slavery was incompatible with

republican government, in the face of at least _two formal recognitions_

of its legality, _in terms_, by the Federal Constitution.

We trust that such counsels have not the remotest prospect of prevailing

in our National Legislature, and will not dwell upon the consequence of

their adoption. We prefer to anticipate a returning fidelity to national

obligations--a faithful adherance to the Constitutional guarantees, and

the consequent prospect--cheering to the patriot of this and other

lands--of a continued and _perpetual_ UNION.

WM. B. NAPTON, _Chairman_.

STERLING PRICE,

M. OLIVER,

S. H. WOODSON.

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

PRO-SLAVERY CONVENTION,

HELD AT LEXINGTON, MO.

The Convention was called to order by Judge Thompson, of Clay county,

and on his motion Samuel H. Woodson, Esq., of Jackson county, was called

to the chair; and on motion of E. C. McCarty, Esq., Col. Sam. A. Lowe,

of Pettis county, was appointed Secretary.

On motion of Col. Young, of Boone county, Resolved, That a committee of

one delegate from each county represented in the Convention be raised,

to select and report permanent officers for the Convention, and to

select a committee who shall prepare resolutions and other business for

the action of the Convention.

In accordance with the above resolution, the following gentlemen were

appointed said committee:

J. W. Torbert, of Cooper county,

Major Morin, of Platte "

W. M. Jackson, of Howard "

S. Barker, of Carroll "

A. G. Davis, of Caldwell "

J. S. Williams, of Linn "

E. C. McCarty, of Jackson "

Austin A. King, of Ray "

Edwin Toole, of Andrew "

D. H. Chism, of Morgan "

A. M. Forbes, of Pettis "

A. G. Blakey, of Benton "

Thomas E. Birch, of Clinton "

G. H. C. Melody, of Boone "

Sam. L. Sawyer, of Lafayette "

C. F. Jackson, of Saline "

Wm. Hudgins, of Livingston "

C. F. Chamblin, of Johnson "

W. H. Russell, of Cass "

John Dougherty, of Clay "

Joseph Davis, of Henry "

Capt. Head, of Randolph "

John A. Leppard, of Daviess "

Wm. H. Buffington, of Cole "

On motion of Mr. Russell, of Cass county, Resolved, That the delegations

from the different counties furnish the Secretary of this Convention

with a list of delegates from their counties.

On further motion of Mr. Russell, of Cass county, permission was given

to the committee on resolutions, &c., to retire and draft resolutions,

to report as soon as practicable.

On motion of Mr. Field, of Lafayette, a committee, consisting of Messrs.

Field, of Lafayette, Bayless, of Platte, and Boyce, of Ray, was

appointed to wait upon Messrs. D. R. Atchison and A. W. Doniphan, and

invite them to address the Convention.

Mr. Moss, of Clay, offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That all persons who are present from the different counties,

although not appointed as delegates by their several counties, be

considered as delegates to this Convention.

Mr. Peabody, of Boone county, moved to amend so as to read, That all

persons from the different counties of the State, friendly to the object

of this Convention, be considered as delegates.

Pending which question, on leave granted, Mr. Field, of Lafayette

county, from the committee appointed to wait on Messrs. D. R. Atchison

and A. W. Doniphan, made their report, stating that those gentlemen

declined addressing the Convention at the present time.

On motion of Mr. Bryant, of Saline, the Convention adjourned. to meet at

2 o'clock, P. M.

EVENING SESSION.

The Convention was called to order by the President, when, on motion of

Mr. Slack, of Livingston, the resolution offered by Mr. Moss, of Clay,

together with the amendment offered by Mr. Peabody, which was pending

when the Convention adjourned, was laid on the table.

On motion of Mr. Field, of Lafayette, Major M. Oliver was requested to

address the Convention, and to give his views on the different subjects

now agitating this country, and which would be brought before this

Convention; which he was proceeding to do, when the committee on

resolutions, &c., asked leave to make their report, which was granted.

The committee then, through their Chairman, Hon. A. A. King, submitted

the following report:

The Committee to whom was assigned the duty of designating permanent

officers for this Convention, beg leave to report the following:

For President, Hon. W. G. Wood, of Lafayette county.

For Vice Presidents, Hon. J. T. V. Thompson, of Clay Co.

Hon. John J. Lowry, of Howard "

Secretaries, Hon. Samuel A. Lowe, of Pettis county,

L. A. Wisely, of Platte "

For Committee on Resolutions,

Major Bradley, of Cooper county,

Dr. Bayless, of Platte "

B. F. Willis, of Clinton "

S. A. Young, of Boone "

Wade M. Jackson, of Howard "

Martin Slaughter, of Lafayette "

Stephen Stafford, of Carroll "

W. B. Napton, of Saline "

W. S. Pollard, of Caldwell "

W. Y. Slack, of Livingston "

J. S. Williams, of Linn "

G. D. Hansbrough, of Cass "

Sam. H. Woodson, of Jackson "

James H. Moss, of Clay "

M. Oliver, of Ray "

D. C. Stone, of Henry "

Robert Wilson, of Andrew "

B. W. Grover, of Johnson "

John S. Jones, of Pettis "

John A. Leppard, of Daviess "

A. G. Blakey, of Benton "

John Head, of Randolph "

W. H. Buffington, of Cole "

The committee also offered the following resolution, which was adopted

by the Convention:

Resolved, That to ascertain the sense of this Convention on all

propositions submitted for its action, each county represented shall be

permitted to cast the same number of votes that it is entitled to cast

in the Lower House of the General Assembly of this State.

On motion of Col. Young, of Boone, a committee, consisting of Messrs.

Young, of Boone, Napton, of Saline, and Russell, of Cass, was appointed

to wait on the President, Hon. W. T. Wood, and escort him to the chair.

On motion of Dr. McCabe, of Cooper, the Convention took a recess for one

hour.

The Convention was again called to order by the President, Hon. W. T.

Wood, when the following gentlemen appeared as delegates, and took their

seats:

_Andrew Co._--Robert Wilson and Edwin Toole.

_Benton Co._--A. G. Blakey.

_Boone Co._--Saml. A. Young, Dr. Peabody, Dr. Thomas, Col. G. H. C.

Melody, Sterling Price, Jr., and James Shannon.

_Caldwell Co._--W. S. Pollard, David Thomson, Wm. Griffey, Albert G.

Davis.

_Carroll Co._--S. Barker, S. Stafford, W. J. Poindexter, R. H. Courts,

C. Haskins, H. Wilcoxen, Judge Thomas, Hyram Willson.

_Cass Co._--Wm. Palmer, J. F. Callaway, F. R. Martin, J. G. Martin, T.

Railey, J. T. Thornton, C. T. Worley, W. H. Russell, S. R.

Crockett, T. F. Freeman, C. Vanhoy, G. D. Hansbrough, S. G.

Allen, H. D. Russell, J. T. Martin.

_Clay Co._--J. T. V. Thompson, John Dougherty, A. W. Doniphan, J. G.

Price, D. J. Adkins, W. E. Price, W. McNealy, J. H. Moss, J. H.

Adams, G. W. Withers, T. McCarty, E. P. Moore, J. M. Jones,

L. A. Talbott, R. J. Lamb, J. Lincoln, W. D. Hubble, T. M. Dawson,

H. L. Rout, R. H. Miller, J. A. Poague, L. W. Burris, S. R.

Shrader, G. Elgin, H. Corwine.

_Cooper Co._--J. W. Torbert, J. K. Ragland, Wm. Bradly, H. E. Moore,

Geo. S. Cockrell, Thomas S. Cockrell, Horace W. Ferguson, R.

Ellis, J. K. McCabe, Jacob Alstadt, H. Tracy.

_Clinton Co._--John Reed, B. F. Williss, C. C. Birch, M. Summers, T. E.

Birch, J. T. Hughes.

_Cole Co._--W. H. Buffington, R. R. Jefferson, J. C. Rogers, C. Eckler.

_Chariton Co._--W. S. Hyde, S. J. Cortes, L. Salisbury.

_Daviess Co._--B. Weldon, J. A. Leppard.

_Howard Co._--J. J. Lowry, S. Graves, W. Payne, R. Basket, M. Taylor,

B. W. Lewis, H. Cooper, J. B. Clark, R. Patterson.

_Henry Co._--D. A. Gillespie, Jo. Davis, D. C. Stone, R. T. Lindsay, H.

Lewis.

_Jackson Co._--S. H. Woodson, W. M. F. Magraw, W. F. Robinson, W.

Easley, E. C. McCarty, N. R. McMurry, J. A. Winn, T. M. Adams,

N. M. Miller, W. Ellis, E. McClanahan, John McCarty, J. M.

Ridge, J. R. Henry, Col. J. M. Cogswell, Jno. Hambright.

_Johnson Co._--Hy. Ousley, S. Craig, N. W. Perry, W. Marr, W. L. Wood,

W. L. Barksdale, C. F. Chamblin, J. M. Fulkerson, Reuben

Fulkerson, W. P. Tucker, P. Manion, W. Kirkpatrick, B. W. Grover.

_Lafayette Co._--F. C. Sharp, W. K. Trigg, O. Anderson, S. L. Sawyer, A.

Jones, R. N. Smith, W. T. Field, W. M. Smallwood, Dr. G. A.

Rucker, (a Committee to cast the vote.)

_Livingston Co._--A. T. Kirtly, A. Craig, W. Hudgins, W. Y. Slack, W. F.

Miller, W. O. Jennings, J. D. Hoy.

_Linn Co._--J. S. Williams.

_Morgan Co._--D. H. Chism.

_Pettis Co._--J. S. Jones, Saml. A. Lowe, A. M. Forbes, G. W. Rothwell,

Geo. Anderson, T. E. Staples.

_Platte Co._--D. R. Atchison, Jo. Walker, G. W. Bayless, T. Beaumont,

D. P. Wallingford, Hy. Coleman, E. P. Duncan, Jesse Morin,

P. Ellington, Sr., Jesse Summers, A. B. Stoddard, Thomas H.

Starnes, J. C. Hughes, Jno. H. Dorriss, F. P. Davidson, L. A.

Wisely, H. B. Ladd.

_Randolph Co._--Judge Head.

_Ray Co._----A. A. King, B. J. Brown, Col. Bohannan, M. Oliver, Major

Boyce, Judge Branstetter, Dr. Chew, W. Warriner, D. P. Whitmer,

Dr. Woodward, S. A. Richardson, Major Shaw, Dr. Garner, A.

Oliphant, T. A. H. Smith, G. J. Wasson, Judge Carter, J. E.

Couch, G. L. Benton, J. P. Quisenberry, S. J. Brown, J. S.

Shoop, J. S. Hughes, D. D. Bullock, Dr. Stone, Judge Price, W.

Hughes, C. T. Brown, O. Taylor, M. C. Nuckolls, J. H. Taylor, R.

Winsett, J. P. Taylor, D. Harbison, Dr. Buchanan, W. M. Jacobs,

Wm. Murry, Col. Smith.

_Saline Co._--W. B. Sappington, C. F. Jackson, O. B. Pearson, T. R. E.

Harvey, J. H. Irvine, L. B. Harwood, V. Marmaduke, M. Marmaduke,

J. H. Grove, Robert Grove, A. M. Davison, W. B. Napton, J. W.

Bryant, T. W. B. Crews, F. A. Combs, M. W. O'Banon, Jas. Coombs,

H. C. Simmons.

Mr. Withers, of Clay, offered a series of resolutions, which he asked

might be read and acted on by the Convention.

Mr. Jackson, of Saline, objected to the reading and moved their

reference to the Committee on Resolutions.

Previous to the vote on said motion, Mr. Withers withdrew the

resolutions, and then, by leave of the Convention, the resolutions were

handed over to the Committee.

The President being notified of the presence of Gov. Sterling Price, in

the house, on motion of Dr. Lowry, of Howard, appointed Messrs. Lowry,

of Howard, and Shewalter, of Lafayette, a committee to wait upon him and

invite him to a seat within the bar.

Mr. C. T. Worley offered the following resolutions:

Resolved, That it is the sense of this Convention, that no valuable

purpose whatever will be subserved by debate, but on the other hand,

will most certainly lead to heated and unprofitable excitement;

therefore,

Resolved, That from henceforward, we will proceed on all propositions

submitted to a direct vote.

Mr. Jackson, of Saline, moved to lay the resolutions on the table, which

motion was carried.

On motion of Mr. King, of Ray, the Convention adjourned till to-morrow

morning at eight o'clock.

SECOND DAY.

FRIDAY MORNING, 8 o'clock.

The Convention met, and was called to order by the President.

Owing to the absence of Mr. Lowe, one of the Secretaries, on motion of

Col. S. A. Young, of Boone, L. J. Sharp, of Lafayette, was appointed to

act in his place.

On motion of J. W. Bryant, of Saline, the proceedings of yesterday were

ordered to be read.

It being announced that other delegates had arrived from different

counties, the following named gentlemen appeared and took their seats in

Convention: