Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1858-11-11

tragic scenes of force aud fraud, the terrific
ry of Kansas at hast came before Congress
for admission as State with what is known
as the Lecomptou Constitution, embodying
slavery among its provisions. But at the
same time the Convention, by an ordinance,
demanded of the United States some twen-
ty-three millions of acres of land, instead Of
the four millions usually allowed to new
States containing public lands. 1t was al
most certain that majority of the people Of
Kansas were opposed to the Constitution,
but would not vote on it, and this additional
nineteen millions, which, if allowed, would
probably have kept them again from the re
cent polls, was what the South was expected
to pay for that worthless slavery clause,
which would have been annulled as soon as
Kansas was admitted.
I confess my opinion was that the South
herself should kick that Constitution out of
Congress. But the South thought other
wise. When the Bill for its adoption was
framed with what is called the Green Provi-
so, I strenuously objected to it, and felt very
much disposed to vote against the whole,
but again gave up to the South, which ac-
cepted it by aeclamation. If that ProViso
meant nothing, and so I interpreted It, it was
nonsense, and had no business, being with
out precedent. If it could be made to mean
it must have been something wrong
aud dangerous. But, as said, the South
took that Bill far and wide. The House re.
jected it. They passed there the Crittenden
substitute, which proposed to submit the
Lecomptou Constitutionto to vote Of the peo-
pie of Kansas, and to acceptit, if ratified
by them. The Senate had previously re-
fused that substitute, and did so a second
time. 1t then asked committee. of Confer
euce. That committee reported what is
called the "English Bill" By that Bill
Congress accepted the Lecompton Constitu-
ton, pure and simple, without proVlso'-
The land ordinance of the Lecompton Con-
ventiou, which was in no wise part of the
Constitution, but a separate measure, de-
mauded, as l have said, donation of twen-
ty.three millions of acres of land, being
nineteen millions more than had been given
to any other land State The English Bill
cut this down to the usual amount of four
millions of acres, and required that the peo-
pie of Kausaa should ratify this modifoa-
ton and surrender all claim to the remain
der of the lands as the condition of her final
admission. Such a requisition has been
made on every new State, carved out of the
public Lands that has been admitted into
this Uniop-aometimes in the enabling act
and where there was not one, always after
accepting the Constitution. Go to the stat
utes of Congress and you will find it in eve-
~ one of them. 1t is the custom, it is ne
cessary, and this feature in the English Bill
was in accordance with strictprecedeut The
only difference is this, that usually the Leg
islature of the State has been required to ac.
cept this compact by an irrevocable act, but
in this case it was referred to the people OF
Kansas directly. In this there was no sac
rifce of principle whatever, nor was it with.
out precedent altogether, for in the case OF
the State last before admitted, Iowa, this
question had been submitted to the Legisla-
ture or the people, as Iowa might PREFER
This is the Vholo sum and substance OF this
English Bill, except that it further declared
that unless the people Of Kansas accepted
this modified ordinance they should not be
admitted as State until they had popu-
lation that would entitle them to one Rep
rssentative under the Federal apportlonment.
l voted orthe Bill, I voted properly, voted
no compromise, 1 sacrificed no particle OF
principle or Southern interest. 1t is true its
phraseology is halting and bungling. twas
drawn mp hastily and in great excitement.
I objected to the wording of it in several
passages But 1 assured myself that moth
ing siuister was designed, and 1 voted for it
leaving its authors responsible for its dicta-
ton on the Statute Book. thought it pre-
ferable to the first Bill the Senate passed,
and voted for it more willingly. 1t is true
some Northern Democrats who voted against
the Senate Bill voted for this, and thus it
was carried. But was that reason why l
should not vote for it! Does that prove
that l sacrificed any principle? They found
themselves wrong and perhaps wanted some
excuse to retrace their steps. l was happy
to assist in giving it to them without cost to
ourselves. I was particularly pleased to get
rid of the mysterious Proviso of the first
Bill, and to require solemn compact in re-
gard to the Public Lands which has not been
properly provided for in that bill.
The only principle involved in this whole
Kansas affair-ifan affair so rotten from be-
ginning to end can have principle at all
was this: Would Congress admit slave
State into the Union? The Senate said yes.
The House, by adopting the Crittenden sub
stitute said, yes, if we are assured that a
majority of the people Of the State are in
favor of it. For this substitute all the oppo.
sition voted in both houses, so that every
member of Congress of all parties first and
last, committed themselves to the principle
and policy that State should be admitted
into the Union, with or without slavery, ac'
cording to the will of its own people-thus
re enacting one feature of the Kansas and
Nebraska bill. | should myself have been
willing to rest there, and let Kansas rest also
Whatever there was of principle or honor in
the matter was secured by the votes already
| n;uon Tho Ennlish hill hnueunr came LIZ