The Topeka state journal., 1911-09-26

Continued from Page Ons)
show that this was to be the wealth
of the south, and the necessity for
labor in the form of slaves impressed
itself upon the business men OF that
section, their attitude naturally
changed, and the Importance of
slavery as an institution to the wealth
and growth of the south made forever
after its maintenance and extension
the burning issue between the north
and the south.
Hoped Missouri Would Settle IL.
I'm the cOntro verSies over slavery
that occurred early in the nineteenth
century, there were compromises lnat
were more easily made tnan later be-
cause the feeling did not then run so
high. In 1920 Missouri was ADMITTED
to the Union as a slave state with the
provision that no territory thereafter
should be admitted as slave state 10
the north of the southern boundary OF
Missouri, 35 degrees and 80 minutes
1t was hoped by all who joined IN tnat
compromise and by those who came
after for the next thirty years, that
this offered a solution OF the question
that made it possible for the north
and the south to live together IN
ssThe acquisition of Texas was
charged to the ambition OF the soutn-
ern statesmen to increase the amount
of slave territory, and 1t was Inrther -Ller
charged that the Mexican war was
prompted really by a desire to make
more room in the south for the exten-
sion of its favorite institution. 1 think
recent historical discussion has shown
that we did not go into the Mexican
war for anything but good reason
and that we were fully justlfled by the
abuses for which the Mexican govern
ment was responsible. However that
may be, the question began to grow
less settled about 1850, when Henry
Clay introduced some compromise
measures looking to the admission OF
California as a free state ana Tor S tns
admission of any territory acquired
from Mexico without any restriction
as to slavery, declaring the 1nexpedl-
ency Of abolishing slavery in the Dis
trict of Columbia without the consent
OF Maryland and without just COM
pensation to the owners of slaves;
prohibiting the slave trade in the Dis
trict Of Columbia, and making more
effectual provision for the renoltlon OF
fugitive slaves. These resolutions were
embodied in a bill supported by Mr.
Clay, Mr.. Calhoun and Mr.. WEBSTER,
the last named in his famous 7th OF
March speech, and were enacted into
law against the opposition of senators
who subsequently made or created the
Repu ublican party.
-Four years later Stephen A. Doug
las, senator from Illinois, introduced in
the senate the Kansas-Nebraska bill
Under this bill the people of the pro-
jected state were given the power to
declare it free or slave when the state
came into the Union. 1t was objected
that the bill was a violation of the
Missouri compromise, as it certainly
was. Senator Douglas insisted that the
compromise of 1850 had repealed the
Missouri compromise of 1920 but they
were met by the arguments of Senators
Chase and Wade of Ohio, Seward of
New York, and Sumner and Everett of
Massac achusetts, who showed beyond
question that the repeal of the Missouri
compromise did not enter into the
consideration of those who were dis
cussing the compromise measures of
1850. However, the southern senators,
coming to the rescue of Senator Doug
las, upon the constitutional ground
that congress had not the power to re-
strict slavery in the territories of new
states passed the bill.
Signal for Warfare.
Its enactment was the signal for a |
renewed and most heated agitation of |
the slavery issue, which did not abate |
until the civil war was fought and |
peace followed. The provision by which /
it was to be determined whether Kan |
sas was to be free or slave by vote |
of those who constituted it's citizens |
when it came into the Union, made the !
Question of the political complexion of |
its settlers of the highest Importance
1T is not too much to say that the |
Kansas-Nebraska BILL with its squat |
ter sovereignty, was a shifting and |
shifty compromise with the southern /
demand for an extension of slave ter |
ritOry, and it may be questioned /
whether it was not more to be depored /
indeed, as the result was, than if a
concession had been a clean declaration
in favor of slavery in the act of con- |
gress admitting it. It shifted the re-
sponsibility from the body of law
makers in washington, upon whom it |
properly rested, to the poor people |
whom a new country would attract and |
who would pay with their blood and /
suffering for the privilege of deciding |
that which some one else ought to have
decided
THE slave state of Missouri lay i'm
mediately east of Kansas, and from
that state it was easy to secure a
large force of pro-slaVery Syrnpathizers
who would invade Kansas temporarily
either for the purpose of fraudulent
voting as residents of the territory, or
for the purpose of maintaining with
deadly weapons the pro-slaVery side Of
the battles which ensued. This proxi-
nifty of Missouri and the natural emf
grafton that would follow the opening
of a new state like Kansas from it's
immediate neighbour on the east, was
most discouraging to those in the
north who were jealous in opposition
to slavery and hopeful of making Kan
sas a free state
Massachusetts to the Rescue.
IT fell to Massachusetts, far removed |,
on The shores of the Atlantic, to take
-p the cause against Missouri and
make the fight for freedom against
slavery. It could not have done this,
think. but for an association of re-
men who carried on the fight
with q persistence, a ShreWdneSS. a |
tenacious purpose, and a clear line of
progress that has never been exceIled
so far as I know in this country's his
tory or any other.