History of Kansas (Holloway 1868)/Chapter 6
CHAPTER VI.
KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT—A SLAVERY TRIUMPH.
By the compromise measure of 1820 slavery was forever prohibited north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude from the territory of the Louisiana purchase, except that portion included in the State of Missouri. As this Compromise was a Southern movement and maintained by Southern votes, it would seem that they were most fairly and solemnly bound to this compact. The opponents of slavery extension were bitterly opposed to the Compromise, because it yielded up the extensive domain of Missouri to slavery; whereas the spirit and teachings of our Government demanded an inhibition of this curse; but after it was legitimately approved of by the legislative councils of the nation, they regarded it with that veneration which is due to a law of the land.
The first infraction of this Compromise occurred in 1836 when a triangular piece of territory, lying between the then existing boundary of the State of Missouri and the Missouri River, was annexed to the former. The original western boundary of Missouri was a line drawn due north and south from the point where the Kansas River enters the Missouri. This was an exceedingly fertile tract of country, from which was formed seven counties of largest size and capable of sustaining the densest population, which numbered in 1860, 70,505 souls. This work was effected so quickly and dextrously by Colonel Benton that it attracted little attention at the time.
Petitions were received at the first session of the thirty-second Congress (1851–2) for organizing the territory west of Missouri, but no action was taken upon them. At the next session Mr. Willard P. Hall, of Missouri, introduced a bill[1] in the House to organize the same territory, together with that west of Iowa, under the name of Platte, which was referred to the Committee on Territories. From this Committee a report was presented[2] organizing the same territory under the name of Nebraska. This, on going to the Committee of the Whole, encountered a strong Southern opposition and was reported[3] back to the House with a recommendation for its rejection. After the failure of a motion to lay it on the table, the bill passed by 98 yeas to 43 nays. On arriving[4] in the Senate it was referred to the Committee on Territories, of which Mr. Stephen A. Douglas was chairman. From this committee it was reported without amendment, but was never acted upon though several unsuccessful efforts were made to have it taken up in the latter days of the session. Thus the Southern members stoutly refused to organize this territory at that time, which, in the next Congress, was an object that they earnestly sought to accomplish. But it is a note-worthy fact that the existence and validity of the Missouri Compromise had not, as yet, been questioned, and no one had discovered that the legislation of 1850 had superceded that of 1820; the only objection urged being that it would infringe upon the rights of the Indians to organize this territory.
In the thirty-third Congress (1853–4), agreeable to a previous notice, Mr. Dodge, of Iowa, introduced[5] a bill into the Senate to organize the Territory of Nebraska without any reference to slavery, which, after being read twice, was referred to the Committee on Territories, from which it was reported back by the chairman, Mr. Douglas, with various amendments. In the report of Mr. Douglas, which accompanied the bill, although he raised the question as to the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, he refrained from passing judgment upon it himself, and no where intimated that the legislation of 1850 had rendered it inoperative. The seat of government was located at Fort Leavenworth, and “all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories and new States formed therefrom,” it suggested that agreeable with the legislation of 1850, should be left to the decision of the people residing therein, through their appropriate representatives. The bill, with the report and amendments, was ordered to be printed.
Mr. Dixon gave notice[6] that when the bill should come up for consideration he would offer an amendment to the following effect:
“That as much of the 8th section of ‘An act approved March 6, 1820, entitled ‘An act to authorize the people of Missouri Territory to form a constitution and a State government and for the admission of such a State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories’ as declares in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, slavery and involuntary servitude otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, is forever prohibited,’ shall not be so construed as to apply to the territory contemplated by this act, or to any Territory of the United States, but that the citizens of the several States and Territories shall be at liberty to take and hold their slaves within any of the Territories of the United States, or of the States to be formed therefrom, as if the said act, entitled as aforesaid and approved as aforesaid, had never been passed.”
This first stroke at the sacred Compromise which had quieted the storm of 1820, and which had been regarded for thirty-four years as lasting as time, fell like a thunder bolt upon the Senate and the nation. The blast of strife was thus sounded by the expiring breath of Plighted Faith. Slavery no longer seeks to disguise its foulness, or apologize for its existence; but vaunteth itself as an institution of our fathers, wholesome to society, and sanctioned by religion. Disdaining all legislative restrictions and trampling under foot all compromises whereby it has hitherto secured tolerance, it arrogates to itself the prerogatives of a full grown monster and dictates to the nation its demands.
Even the ambitious Stephen A. Douglas was startled at the unexpected report. He had congratulated himself that he had rendered such signal service to the South by questioning the validity ot the Missouri Compromise and virtually removing its interdiction to slavery that it could only be rewarded by placing him in his long sought for position—the Presidency. Ambition, though baffled and apparently defeated, never despairs, but proceeds to consult the unprincipled Oracle of Success. Mr. Douglas resolves to go so far beyond the one who thus outbid him, that the spoils of his achievements shall be all that the insatiable cravings of slavery can demand. He therefore draws up a bill almost entirely unlike any of the preceding ones. Instead of organizing one, he now proposes to organize two Territories, the first to include that Territory lying between Missouri and the Rocky Mountains, north of thirty-seven degrees north latitude, to be called Kansas; the second, the remaining portion of what was contemplated by the former bills, called by the name of Nebraska. He moved the southern boundary up to thirty-seven degrees north latitude in order that it might coincide with the boundary between the Osages and Cherokees. The question of slavery was left to be decided by the people of said Territories through their appropriate representatives. The section providing for electing a Delegate is amended by adding to the words “that the Constitution and all the laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory as elsewhere in the United States,” the following:
“Except the 8th section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri, approved March 6, 1820, which was superceded by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise Measure, and is declared inoperative.
The bill thus reported by Mr. Douglas was debated at length in the Senate. The arguments employed by the disputants were the same as those employed in the similar discussion of 1820 with two additional ones. The Restrictionists now had besides all their other arguments, the Missouri Compromise, forever prohibiting slavery from the territory in question, which had been regarded as sacred for more than a score and a half of years. The Anti-Restrictionists had the famous doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty, which, claiming for itself absolute orthodoxy, utterly repudiated all quondam legislation not in harmony with it, disdained precedents and overswept every logical barricade.
On the 15th of February Mr. Douglas moved that the clause, declaring that the Restriction of 1820 superceded by the legislation of 1850, be stricken out, and in lieu thereof, had inserted the clause of similar nature now found in the Ordinance. Mr. Chase then moved to have the following added:
“Under which the people of the Territories through their appropriate representatives, may if they see fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein.”
But this motion was lost by 36 nays to 10 yeas. Thus the people of these territories which had been shielded from slavery by the compromise of 1820, were not allowed by this act to exclude slavery if they wished. On motion of Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, the following amendment was added.
“Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of 6th of March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, abolishing or prohibiting slavery.”
This motion elicited considerable discussion, many contending that it infringed upon the principles of non-intervention by Congress.
Mr. Clayton, of Delaware, attached the following provision:
“Provided That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States.”
Mr. Chase then proposed to strike out the second section and insert a provision for dividing the territory into election precincts, appointing places of election, etc., so that the people conld choose their own Governor and Legislators. But the motion was defeated by 30 nays to 10 yeas.
The bill on coming from the Committee of the Whole was concurred in[7] by the Senate.
In the House Mr. Richardson, of Illinois, Chairman of the Committee on Territories, reported a bill,[8] for organizing Nebraska and Kansas Territories, similar to that reported in the Senate by Mr. Douglas.
This bill was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, which was regarded as equivalent to its rejection. No further action was taken upon it until the 8th of May, when other bills on the calendar were laid aside and it taken up; whereupon Mr. Richardson offered the Senate bill as a substitute. An effort was made on the 11th to have the debate upon the subject close on the following day at 12 o'clock M., which occasioned a violent and protracted session of thirty-six hours. It was afterwards fixed that the debate should close on the 20th of May. During the discussion which followed, various attempts were made to insert a clause in the bill giving to the people of the territory the right to prohibit slavery therein through their appropriate representatives if they saw fit. On the 22nd of May, Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, made a skillful parliamentary movement by which the bill was quickly forced through. He moved that the enacting words of the bill be stricken out, which has precedence of all motions to amend, and is regarded as equivalent to the rejection of a measure. The vote upon this motion was immediately pressed, which resulted in 103 ayes and 22 noes; many of its opponents refusing to vote. Thereupon the Committee arose and reported its action to the House which refused to concur in the amendment, striking out the enacting clause. Mr. Richardson then moved an amendment by which all after the enacting clause was stricken out and in lieu thereof introduced the Senate bill (except Mr. Clayton's amendment) and demanded the previous question. The amendment was accordingly passed; the bill engrossed, read a third time and adopted by 113 yeas to 100 nays. The Congressional Globe says:
“[The announcement of the vote was received with prolonged clapping of hands, both in the House and Galleries and cries of “Order! Order!”]
“The Speaker—Unless order is preserved, the Chair will order the galleries to be cleared.”
“Mr. Stuart of Michigan—(in his seat), The trouble is not in the galleries.”
This bill passed the House as an original bill of that body, and was sent to the Senate for concurrence. An unsuccessful attempt was now made to reinsert Mr. Clayton's amendment excluding foreigners from certain civil privileges. In the course of the debate which ensued Senator Atchison, of Missouri, said:
“Mr. President, I voted for the amendment of the Senate bill proposed by the Senator from Delaware, but I must say now that I concur with the Senator from Georgia. I have not, however, changed my opinion, which I entertained then, that none but American citizens, native-born or naturalized, should be entitled to the right of suffrage or hold office either in the States or Territories of this country. But, Sir, there is a higher principle involved in this measure. There is no constitutional question in my opinion involved in voting either for or against this amendment. It is a mere question of policy and that question of policy I am willing to yield for the sake of a higher principle entertained in this bill. Sir, I would vote for this bill, although there might be not only one, but one thousand obnoxious principles contained in it. I would vote for it because it blots out that infamous,—yes, sir, I think it a proper term to use—that infamous restriction passed by the Congress of 1820, commonly called the Missouri Compromise, passed when the State which I now in part have the honor to represent, asked admission into the Union of these States, and it was made a condition, an infamous condition, that slavery should be excluded from all the territory acquired from France, then called Louisiana, north of 36° 30' north latitude. Yes, Sir, if this bill contained one thousand obnoxious principles, with the repeal of that infamous ‘Compromise,’ as it is called, I should vote for it. When this is done we shall have achieved what, after thirty years of struggle, has only been consummated at this session.”
This exhibits the feeling with which slavery propagandists regarded the Missouri Compromise—a restriction which they had solemnly and voluntarily applied to slavery themselves in order that they might gain other ends. But after they had secured all the advantages of these concessions on the part of Free Labor, they break down the barrier of plighted faith and demand all that they had of their own accord surrendered up.
The bill which passed the Senate on the 25th and received the signature of the President on the 30th of May, 1854, will be found in the following chapter:
It is very evident that the scheme of organizing two territories instead of one, was designed to keep up the balance of power between the northern and southern States. The latter who saw that no reasonable objection could be interposed sooner or later against the organization of Nebraska, which must necessarily be a free Territory, determined, in order to preserve the equilibrium of power, to divide it into two territories, one of which would, as necessarily, by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, come into the Union as a Slave State. That this was the real design and understanding of those who originated and supported the Nebraska-Kansas Bill is fully shown by what followed.