Talk:Lecompton Constitution

message: I have classified this article as a start due to its level of organisation and detail. Capitalistroadster 07:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification

message: On the surface, it seems reasonable that the Lecompton Constitution referendum had a vote for the "Constitution with Slavery" vs. the "Constitution with No Slavery". But this is misleading. The "Constitution with No Slavery" choice would not have made Kansas a free state; it made provision that slaves at that time in Kansas could not be messed with; their owners could keep them, and as the right of property could not be forced to release them or leave. The only thing the "Constitution with No Slavery" would've ostensibly stopped was the future importation of slaves into Kansas. Many deemed this, apart from the complete banning of slavery in Kansas, as unenforceable. This helps explain why anti slavery forces boycotted the referendum.
The later referendum that was taken added to the above choices the option to vote against the Constitution. Pro-slavery forces boycotted this election. But the Lecompton Constitution was not finally rejected until the House of Representatives voted down the admission of Kansas as a state under the Lecompton Constitution by a close margin, featuring Stephen Douglas and many Northern Democrats siding with the free soil Republicans. I briefly added these points to the article.John ISEM 20:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Problem with Lecompton 

message: The article implies that Governor Walker was inherently antislavery--he was in fact, as his Wikipedia biography states, "a passionate defender of slavery, both for economic benefits, and because he believed Negroes would fall into turpitude or insanity without firm masters.""Robert J. Walker," Media:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Walker The article also suggests that Walker approved of the Lecompton Constitution, when in fact he resigned in opposition to it.Ibid.[Media:[Media:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Walker]] This completely inverts the significance of Walker's contribution, and the meaning of the Constitution itself.  Cwhig1848 (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert J. Walker discussion inadequate, misleading 

message: This article is not useful, I need information about it, and instead of telling me what purpose it was for, it ended up telling me who wrote it, and if it did, then well it needs to be written in language anyone can understand 97.77.96.128 (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Note 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lecompton Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616150553/http://www.kshs.org/places/constitution/index.htm to http://www.kshs.org/places/constitution/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified