The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-04-17

corporation by statute, is right OF every citizen
of the United States as it is right of every free
man in the world. The State that denies this
right is a tyranny-the subject to whom 1t Is de-
MED is a slave Such free emigration is the chief
| element Of American progress and civilization.
Without it, there could be no community, no poilu-
cal Territory State in Kansas. Without it, there
could have been no United States of America.
To retain and carry into Kansas cherished pollt-
ical as well al moral, social, and religious con-
yictions, is right of every emigrant. Must emil
grants to that Territory carry there only their
persons, and leave behind their minds and souls
disemboded and wandering in their native
lands2 They only are fit founders of a State who
exercise independence of opinion and it is to the
exercise of that right that our new States, equally
with all the older ones, owe their intelligence
and vgor.
| "There are who, distant from their native SOIL
| iSiill for t..eir and country's glory toll;
| While some fast rooted 10 their parent spot,
| In life useless, and III death. forgot"
| It is not morally wrong for Massachusetts, to
aid her sons, by a charter to do what in itself is
! innocent and commendable. The President and
the majority of the committee maintain that such
associations are in violation of national or at
least of international laws Here is the Constitu-
ton of the United States, and here are the Stat
utes at Large, in ten volumes octave. Let the
President or his defenders point out the inhibi-
ton They specify, particularly, that the action
of the State violates law of comfy, which
| regulates the intercourse of independent States,
and especially the intercourse between the men,
bers of the Federal Union. Here Vattel and
Burlamaqui. Let them point out in these pages
this law of comfy. There is no law of comfy
which forbids nations from permitting and en-
couraging emigration, on the ground of opinion.
| Moreover Slavery is an outlaw under the law of
nations Still further, the Constitution of the
| United States has expressly incorporated into
itself all of the laws of comfy, for regulating the
intercourse between independent States, which
it deems proper to adopt Whatever is forbidden
expressly by the Constitution is unlawful. What
ever is not forbidden is lawful The supposed
law of comfy is not incorporated into the Con-
stitution.
With the aid of the Committee on Territories, we
discover that the emigrants from Massachusetts,
have violated the supposed national laws, not by
any unlawful conduct of their own but by provo
king the unlawful and fagitous conduct of the in
vaders of Kansas. I" They passed through Missouri
in large numbers, using violent language, and
giving unmistakable indications of their hostility
to the domestic institutions of that State" and
thus "they created apprehensions that the object
of the Emigrant Aid Company was to a6ohtionize
Kansas, as a means of prosecuting a relentless
warfare upon the institution of Slavery within
the limits of Missouri, which apprehensions, in
creasing with the progress of events, ultimately
became settled convictions of the people of
western Missouri"
Missouri builds railroads, steamboats,, and
wharves. 1t cannot be, therefore, that the mere
"largeness of the numbers of the Eastern trav-
ellers offended or alarmed the borderers. / con-
fess my surprise that the sojourners used violent
language. 1t seems unlike them. / confess my
greater surprise that the borderers disturbed
so deeply by mere words. 1t seems unlike them.
Which of the domestic institutions of Missouri
III
ed determined hostility Not certainly her man
afactores banks railroads, churches, and schools.
All these are domestic institutions held in high
respect by the men of Massachusetts, and are just
such ones as these emigrants now establishing
in Kansas. 1t was therefore African Slavery
alone peculiar domestic institution of Missouri
against which their hostility was directed
Waving suspicious want of proof of the unwise
conduct charged against them, / submit that
clearly they did not thereby endanger that pecu-
liar institution in Missouri for they passed di-
rectly through that State into Kansas. How, them
were the borderers provoked? The Mssourians
inferred, from the language and demeanor of the
travellers, that they would dboltionze Kansas and
thereafter, by means of Kansas abolitionized
prosecute relentless warfare against Slavery in
Missouri. Far-seeing statesmen are these Missouri
borderers, but less deliberate than far-sighted
Kansas was not to be abolitonzed. 1t had
never been otherwise than abolitionzed. Abo-
htionlZed Kansas would constitute no means for
the prosecution of such a warfare. Missouri lies
adjacent to abolitionized Iowa on the north, and
to abolitionized Illinois the east, yet neither
OF those States has ever been used for such de-
signs. How could this fearful enemy prosecute
warfare against Slavery in Missouri Only by
buying the plantations of her citizens at their
own prices, and so qualifying themselves to speak
their hostility through the ballot boxes2 Could
apprehensions so absurd justify the invasion of
Kansas? Are the people of Kansas to be disfran-
chised and trodden down by the President of the
United States, in punishment for any extrava-
gance of emigrants, in Missouri, on the way to
that Territory?
Such is the Presidents second defence, so far
as it presents new matter in avoidance of the accu-
sation of the new State of Kansas.
proceed, in the third place. to establish the
truth of the accusations. OF what sort must the
proofs be? Manifestly only such as the circum-
stances of the case permit to exist. Not engrossed
documents, authenticated by executive, judicial,
or legislative officers. The transactions occurred
in an unorganized country. All the authorities
subsequently established in the Territory are
implicated, all the complainants disfranchised.
Only presumptive evidence, derived from the
contemporaneous statements and actions of the
parties concerned, cas be required.
Such presumptive evidence is derived from the
nature and character of the Presdent's defences
d
! of December last, when the new State of Kansas
was yet unorganized, and could not appear here
to prefer her accusations until the 23d of March
why, II he must answer so prematurely, did he
not plead a general and direct denial? If he
must plead specially, why did he not set forth the
facts, instead of Withholding all actual informa-
ton concerning the case? Why, since, instead of
! defending himself, he must implead his accussr,
did he not state, at least, the ground on
which that accuser claimed to justify the conduct
OF which he complained? Why did he threaten
" to overcome and suppress" the people of Kan
sas, as insurrectionists, if he did not mean to
terrify them, and to prevent their appearing here,
or at least to prejudice their cause? Why did
be mock them with promise of protection there
after, against interference by citizens of other
States, if they should deport themselves peace
fully and submissivey to the Territorial authori-
ties, ifno cause for apprehendng such interference
had already been given by previous invasion?
! Why did he labor to embarrass his accuser by
identifying her cause with the subject of aboli-
ton of Slavery, and stgmatize her supporters
with Opprobrious epithets, and impute to them
depraved and sedtiOus motives? Why did he
interpose the false and impertinent ISSUE whether
one State could intervene by its laws or by force
to abolish Slavery in another Statei Why did
he distort the Constitution, and present it as
pressly guarantying the perpetuity of Slavery?
| Why did he arragn so unnecessarily and so I'M
justly, not one but all of the original Northern
States Why did he drag into this case, where
only Kansas is concerned, studied, partial, and
preudcial history Of the past engagements of the
national domain, and of the past contests between
the slave States and the free States in their rivalry
for the balance of power?
| Why did not the President rest content with
one such attack ON the character and conduct of
the new State of Kansas, in anticipating her
coming, if he felt assured that she really had no
merit on which to stand? Why did he submit