The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-01-25

moved heart and soul by the desire to
beat down slavery and build here the
temple of liberty undefiIed- If they were
so moved they are immortal On this
broad principle should Kansas history
be written. The author recognizes this
principle, and by it has he acted. 1t is
not to be thought that he agrees with
all that each did: he does not agree
with all that any did. And the friends
of Brown and Lane will not be salts
fled with the treatment accorded these
great men, 1 am myself compelled to
dissent from his conclusions in many
instances l might go further and say
that injustice is done them more than
once, and that an erroneous interpreta-
ton has been made of their actions and
the position taken by writer's friendly to
them. In fact, do believe such in
stances could be pointed out in the
book. But 1 realize that these old feuds
between men were more bitter here in
Kansas than elsewhere in our country.
While men fought each other for place,
they stood together as one man against
the invader, and this is recognized by
Blackmar. It is to be expected that he
Will make the most of the actions of the
subject of his book He is mistaken
in the conclusion that there were two
well defined parties or factions in the
ranks of the Free State men, one a con-
sentative minority led by Robinson
which finally achieved the freedom of
Kansas in spite of all the other faction
could do. No such division existed.
Robinson had his admirers and Lane
had his followers; and the admirers of
Robinson and the followers of Lane
were always united on the policy which
finally won a victory for freedom for all
men on these fair prairies. The auth
or's chief dependence for his conclusion
is Governor Stanton's Bismarck grove
speech. No reliance can be had on that
speech for such purpose, for Stanton
was more bitterly opposed to Lane than
to any other man in Kansas. He was
Lanes prosecutor in the Jenkins kill
fr,cr
to convict him, though unsuccessful
He was a candidate for the United
States senate against Lane. Lane de-
feated him and Robinson, and so much
to heart did Stanton take the defeat
that it embittered his remaining days.
On account of it he abandoned the
state, and became a man with a griev-
ance. always reproaching Kansas for
his life: he died a broken and a COM
planning man. His testimony against
Lane amounts to nothing.
As an instance of omission at the ex-
pense of Lane we cite the election of
1858. 1t is not the office of the author
in this instance to look out for the fame
of any but Robinson but here the fail
ure to state the facts is a historical
omission that should not be passed
over. Lane was appointed by the Free |
State convention to organize the forces |
of the Free-State party into army |
to defend the ballot box from the Mis- |
1t was great responsibility, |
but Lane was equal to it. His actions |
in this matter form one of the most i'm |
portant chapters in our Territorial his /
tory for greater immediate consequent /
ces depended upon the result than upon
the result of any other policy pursued 1
to that time. Strange to say, this cam I
paign has been almost ignored by Kan |
sas historians. The orders issued by /
Lane are in the historical society. All /
the Free-State men were enrolled Cor /
service and armed as far as possible. /
The result of that election has been at
trfbuted to the promises made by Gov
ernor Walker. Other governors had |
made promises but the Missourians
came over Just the same Walk
ar's promises did not keep them out on
that occasion, but Lanes organization
did. They ventured to but two polling
places in the Territory, and those were
near the Missouri line. TIE Free-State
men won the legislature by their own