The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-09-11

| ted States, and grave senators, DOWN, uoWh, W
the little we-mean-to-subdue-you scrub ora
| tor commanding the advance guard OF the free-
| state slave democracy.
| Sir, make no apologyfor any exertions, however
great on the part of the people of the free states or
any one or more Of them, to preoccuPy Kansas with
free-state settlers. Their fault guilt in that
regard has not been excess, but the lack OF exer-
| ton to that end. Why, sir, did the shareholders
and their sham democratic allies presume that all
shirt. all devotion to the constitution and the
union-nay, all-self respect, all manhood even,
had so forsaken that people, that they would give
nm Kansas prey to slavery, through the treach-
| ery of those whose special duty it was, to guard
the interests of freedom, without availing them
selves of the poor and only chance left for liberty
on that soil-the chance OF outvotlng the toois Oh
slavery by bona tide settlers from the free states
| Well. sir. if they did, it was their own folly.
They had no reason to expect such pusillan-
| unity. such degradation from the sturdy and in
| tellipent yeomanry and mechanics OF the Tree
states. whatever they may have had reason to
| expect from such specimens OF the crlnging syco-
infants and doughfaces as had wormed themselves
into congress and the executive from those states
! Nav. sir. theu did not expect it, They anticipated
competition from that quarter. They challenged
| and detied it. They reasoned in favor of their
souatter-sovereignty humbug, by asserting the
superior capabilities of the free states over the
| slave states, for the immediate occupancy OF
Kansas bv free-state settlers. They tainted those
of us. who were unwilling to remove this Mis-
souri, restriction, with hypocrisy on this very
n ground viz that on their squatter and popular
Sovereignty theory the free states had greatly the
advantage in the settlement ofthe territory, over
the slave states. Some of them declared that
they expected no advantage for slavery by the
repeal. Thus Judge Butler, of South Carolina,
SENATE, March %, 1854; Appendix to Congress
sional Globe first session Thirty-third Congress,
p. 1929
aft two states should come into the union
from them, kansas and Nebraska 1t is very
certain that not more than one OF them could
| in any possible event be slaveholding state
and have not the least idea that even one
would be-"
| GAS far as | am concerned, l must say that
| do not expect that this bill is to give us OF the
south anything, but merely to accommodate
something like the sentiment of the south"
No, Mr. Chairman, it was, then, " not to make
a slave state of Kansas" but to " accommodate
a southern sentiment" to which the Missouri
restriction was offensive. Oh, how gentle then
The velvet footballs of the cat before Selling her
prey, were not more soft and unalarming.
But Mr. Chairman, Notwithstanding all this
seeming or real disinterestedness Il do not I'M
dertake to determine which) on the part of some
of the southern men, there were others who did
not view it in that light at all.
Mr. BELL, of Tennessee, MAY "a, 1854, Ap-
pendix, as above, page $780, alluding to what
had been stated in a caucus of the advocates OF
the repeal of the Missouri compromise, as to the
effect of such repeal upon the entrance of slavery
into the territories, says:
But this broad principle of squatter sover-
eighty was not the idea on which the repeal
clause of this bill was inserted. was assured
then that the South had some interest in it
that it would secure, practically, slave terri
tory west Of Missouri that slavery would go
into Kansas, when the restriction of 1920 was
removed. 1t was not dwelt on in argument
but my honorable friend from Missouri knows
that that view was taken by him, Atchison,
and l differed from him in regard to it.
thought slavery could not go there the honor
able Senator thought it could.
Mr.. ATCHIsoN. And | think so STILL"
This debate, slight as are the glimpses it fur
nshes, still discloses enough to prove the eager
coverings of the shareholders for Kansas, and
that they had already been " led into tempta-
tion" in relation to the question, how the terri
tories could be appropriated to the uses Of sla-
very2 1t was then already the "Naboth's vine
yard" of the slaveholding section of the sham
democracy, and they were then, casting about fol
the means of converting it to the of slavery.
" Atchison thought it could be done," though
Bell doubted. At this conclave he Bell "was
assured that the South had some interest in it
that it would secure, practically, slave terri
tory west of Missouri that slavery would GO
into Kansas, when the restriction of 1920 was
| removed"
Who that reads that, can doubt that there had
been at that time, a matured conspiracy, OF
which Atchison the presiding genius, to re-
peal the restriction, and instantly to inundate
Kansas with save-breeding emigrants from Mis-
souri, No one can entertain a reasonable doubt
that the sham democrats in congress from the
free states, were at that time, advertised of the
| avis IF nd had N
structed by their leaders, the Shareholders, to
attempt to convert their constituents to the new
faith, that opening the territory of Kansas to the
legal introduction of slaves, did not tend in the
least, to make it slave state; that the grand dis
covery of squatter sovereignty, would set all these
things right, as by the power of magic.
For this conspiracy, there was doubtless pro-
gramme, which subsequent developments indi-
cate to have been something after this wise
The Missouri restriction to be repealed I'M
der pretence of accommodating southern sem
timent.' Southern gentlemen were to affect, not
to seem anxious for the entrance of slavery into
the territory nor to anticipate any such result.
The people of the free states were to be brought
to jubilate over the newborn squatter-sover-
eighty faith, as charm or fetish which would
thereafter forever, secure them against all further
political evil. In the mean time, Atchson was
to organize the Cossacks of the Missouri borders,
and take possession in the name of slavery and
squatter sovereignty, before the free state lag
CARDS could draw on their boots.
1t was probably in view of this programme,
or something in substance the same, that their
ablest debaters in congress, were selected to
open the fire upon the " abolitionists,' as the
opponents of the repeal were called by its advo-
Gates. This was commenced in gallant style by
Mr. Breckenridge the now democratic candidate
for vice president. In that speech, the harp
of thousand strings, "squatter or popular SOW
ereignty," was played on by the great musician
to the following tune:
"But, again, cannot the North with her over
whelming numbers, compete with us on these
new theatres in the race of settlement and civil
ization, and must she not only violate the con-
stitution by shutting out half the states, COM
mon property holders with her; but, in the
name of liberty, outrage liberty by erecting a
despotism over the territories ?"
In the pamphlet edition of this speech, the
question is put in this form:
"Cannot you, of the free states on this theory
of popular sovereignty compete successfully
with us of the slave states for supremacy in the
| territotes-you, who have some fifteen mil
lions of free population, while we, of the slave
states, have less than one half of that number I?
If you cannot, then what becomes of your boast
ed superiority of free slave institutions pr
Globe Appendir, first session Thntythird Congress,
p. 442.
This was the tune pitched by the " chief must
cian," and was responded to by the whole choir
of under performers, as well in congress, and by
the press, as the stump. Sir, it was an open
challenge to the intelligent enterprising, and in
dustrious people of the free states, to enter the
lists with the slave states in the peaceful settle
ment of the territory, on the newly discovered
principle of "squatter sovereignty" By this it