Kansas weekly herald. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan. Territory [Kan.]) 1854-1858, 1855-06-15
The KaDsas-QuesfiOn.

The Kansas Question.
Much of the excitement manifested In
connexion with the late occurrences In Kan
sas may be fairly attributed to the fact that
sufficient attention has not been given to
the provocation under which the Missou-
rians acted, and to the peculiar manner IN
which they are interested in the social and
political condition of the Territory. When |
viewed in its true light, with all the allow |
ances propely to be made for the course
adopted by the Missourians, the question |
involved Is full of danger to the peace of
the country, and, therefore, to be noticed
safely or profitably, must be correctly under |
stood. In the first place, it should be borne
IN mind that Missouri is a slayeholding
State, and hence that her citizens have a
deep stake in all that concerns the institu-
ton of slavery. On two sides she is alrea-
dy bordered by free States, and in those,
as in most of the other free States, the spirit
of abolitionism has recently seemed to be
predominant. Thus situated, it is not sur
prising that the people of Missouri should
feel keenly sensitive as to the erection OF
another free State on another one of her
borders-thereby drawing around her on
three sides a Gordon of free States, filled
with hostility to her Institutions, and con-
trolled by men who avow their purpose to
adopt every means to effect the ultimate
abolition of slavery. Bordered on two sides
already with open enemies to their institu-
tons, it was natural that Missouri should
look with absorbing interest to the future
political condition of Kansas, which border
ed her On a third side.
t. r1o - ;o to h
serve that Congress had that principle of
popular sovereignty as the rule by which
the future political condition of Kansas was
to be determined. The legitimate mesning
| of that rule was, that the inhabitants of the
Territory, attracted to it as their future
homes, In the voluntary and ordinary pur-
suit of their happiness, and for the perma-
nent prosecution of their industrial occupa-
tion, should determine whether slavery
should or should not exist in the Territory.
Next to the inhabitants of Kansas them
selves. the people of Missouri had the deep
est interest in the settlement of this ques-
ton. To them it was only second In impor-
tance to the question whether slavery should
continue to exist in their own State. They
felt that if they should be surrounded on
three sides with anti-slayery States, it would
be almost tantamount to the abolition of
slavery In their own State. Yet the prin-
ciple of the Kansas bill was so fair that its
adoption was cheerfully acquiesced in by
her people.
r. Inthe third place, it cannot be too careful
ly remembered that the abolitionists of the
free States at no time acquieseed In the
principle of popular sovereignty on which
Kansas was to be organized. When this
principle was first adopted in the compro-
mise measure of 1850, the abolitionists ar
rayed themselves against it, and its adop-
ton persistently repudiated it as a rule OBJ
ligatory on them. When the bill to organ
ize Nebraska an1 Kansas was first intro
duced it contained no clause repeating, in
express terms, the Missouri restriction; but
it contained the principle of popular sover-
eighty, as adopted in the Compromise of
1850. So soon as it was introduced the abo- |
lition leaders in Congress appealed to the
anti-slavery mep everywhere to resist its |
passage; they opposed it as fiercely and as
fanatically as before the clause for the re-
peal of the Missouri restriction was inserted
as afterwards, showing, indisputably, that
it was the principle of popular sovereignty
which provoked their hostility then, as it
did when the Compromise of 1850 was
passed. This settled and uncomfortable
hostility of the abolitionists to the principle
of the Kansas bill was known to the Mis-
sourians, and hence they had every reason
to expect that they would spare no effort to
defeat its practical application IN the organ
lzation of the Territory. The Kansas bill
had scarcely become law before this spirit
of hostility to its provisions was manifested
in manner that could not fail to inhame
the popular mind In Missouri. In Massa-
chusetts, situated more than thousand
miles frem Kansas, an act of Incorporation
was obtained for the organization of the
g Emigrant Aid Company" the avowed OBJ
Jet of which was to operate upon and eontol
the future political condition Of Kansas.
The objects of this association are no longer
involved In uncertainty. One Of the mis-
sionaries of the company, writing to the
New York Tribune on the 9Th of May,
throws the responsibility of the failure of
the abolition scheme on the Massachusetts,
Aid Company, saying: 's7Ris ia,stitution,
sphose really grand conception tearti fully men
aced he Very eristence of slauery, soon be-
came, through Its gross mismanagement, a
real god. send to the nascent conspiracy.
From the moment that its first sonoreus chal-
lenge fung through the nation Atehison felt
that he; had gained point whereon forest
his lever. That detiaaceto slavery. 50 un-
,oiseIy hurled, ,Das to TIE South call to arnss,
and Missouri must be. from her positiaosa,
the first to respond. Had The challmee fsl
boldly and ably follosOsd up, the legs
darkness might at once ha0s been o5spotc-
cred AID put to fight This writer, who |
is endorsed By the Tribune. proceeds to say:
'.The first step taken lby the Missourians) |