1853-1857 the Know-Nothing candidate for governor defeated both the Whig and Democratic candidates, while the Know-Nothings elected practically the entire legislature and all the congressional delegation, who were likewise all anti-slavery men. Taking the result of all the elections, we find that the Democratic majority of 84 in the last House of Representatives was now reduced to a minority of 75. Of 42 Northern Democrats who had voted for the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, only seven were reelected. 28 There could, therefore, be no question as to the character of the popular verdict in the free States; it was almost unanimously against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. One of the surprises of the election was the astonishing success of the Know-Nothing party. In the State elections of the following year they triumphed in New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, elected several of the principal State officers in Kentucky, Maryland and Texas, and came very near carrying the other Southern States, being beaten only by majorities ranging from 2,000 to 11,000 votes. After this the Know-Nothing movement declined. Its mysteries and secrets soon became known and henceforth its principles were advocated openly, as common-sense required, but its old-time power over the many who had an ear for the mysterious had gone. The Whig party still maintained its organization in the North and put out tickets; but in the South it disappeared, some of the Whigs joining the Know-Nothings, but most of them becoming Democrats. IV THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS It now remains to describe the result of the practical working of the squatter sovereignty theory in the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. Whether either or both of them should be given over to slavery was, under the operation of the law, a problem of emigration, for it was the vote of the squatter sovereigns which was in the end to determine the status of the Territory. Both sides, therefore, made ready to colonize Kansas with their followers, for there, it was foreseen, would be the battleground between freedom and slavery. At once the pro-slavery settlers of 28 See Rhodes, "History of the United States," vol. ii. pp. 58 et seq. 1853-1857 Western Missouri crossed into Kansas and proceeded to stake off some of the choicest land of the Territory. This was promptly followed by a movement of emigrants from the free States. In order to insure a systematic emigration from the North the Emigrant-Aid Society, with a large capital, was organized in Massachusetts under the direction of Eli Thayer, a shrewd Yankee, who conceived the idea of sending out settlers in companies under the guidance of tactful leaders. Money was to be advanced to the settlers, and in other respects those who were willing to undertake this service in the interest of freedom were to receive substantial encouragement. Thayer and his supporters foresaw that few of the Southern planters would find it practicable to sell out their lands and take their slaves to this new country, where it was almost certain that slave labor would not be profitable. On the other hand there was a large floating population in the North ready to emigrate to Kansas, especially if a little material encouragement were given, and who would, when the time came, cast their votes for freedom. Thayer reasoned correctly. He experienced no difficulty in finding settlers eager for an opportunity to become landholders in Kansas, and soon companies supplied with money and other necessaries of life, including large quantities of Sharpe's rifles, and directed by experienced colonizers, were on the way to swell the ranks of the free State settlers of Kansas. The South looked on this movement with indignation and denounced it as an audacious scheme of Northern abolitionists to get control with settlers recruited from the slums of eastern cities, of a territory which fairness and justice required should be reserved for bonâ fide settlers from the Southern States. The South soon found itself at a disadvantage in competing with the North under such circumstances for the possession of Kansas, although feeble efforts were made in several Southern localities to imitate Thayer's scheme. The most notable of these attempts at colonization was the expedition of Colonel Buford of Alabama, who led to Kansas a company of 280 men from Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia in the spring of 1856.29 But the most prolific recruiting ground of the South was the western part of the adjacent State of Missouri, then the frontier of American civilization. The news of the organized movement in New England to people Kansas with 29 See Fleming, "The Buford Expedition to Kansas" in American Historical Review, vol. vi. pp. 38–48. 1853-1857 abolitionists had thrown the Missourians into a state of excitement bordering on frenzy. Most of them were either slaveholders or friends of slavery, and they professed to feel a sense of insecurity and danger at the prospect of having a free State so near their borders. Besides, they assumed that the act of 1854, in spirit at least, intended Kansas for slavery and Nebraska for freedom. Accordingly, to offset the Emigration Societies of New England, the Missourians proceeded to organize themselves into "Blue Lodges" pledged to do everything in their power to counteract the efforts of the abolitionists in Kansas. In November, 1854, the territorial election for the choice of a delegate to Congress occurred, and on the day of the election some seventeen hundred of the Missourians crossed over into Kansas and cast their votes for the pro-slavery candidate, who was elected by a large majority and was allowed to take his seat in the House of Representatives without objection. Again in March, 1855, some 5,000 Missourians armed with pistols, bowie knives and a generous supply of bad whisky, invaded the State for the purpose of assisting in the choice of the members of the territorial legislature. Again the elections were carried by the pro-slavery men, and Missourians threatened to shoot the governor if he dared refuse certificates to those who had received the most votes and to punish in like manner anyone who should endeavor to get signers to a petition protesting against the seating of those who had received majorities. These occurrences caused great indignation throughout the North, and even caused the governor of Missouri who had previously shown pro-slavery sympathies, to become an anti-slavery advocate. In the South, on the other hand, the conduct of the Missourians was generally approved as a legitimate means of meeting the methods employed by the abolitionists of New England. Upon the meeting of the territorial legislature in July, 1855, all the Free Soil members except one were unseated, and he voluntarily resigned, leaving the legislature entirely in the hands of the pro-slavery men. The legislature then changed its place of meeting to a point conveniently near the Missouri border and promptly enacted the provisions of the Missouri slavery code without even altering the phraseology so as to adapt it to the status of Kansas as a Territory. In addition to the Missouri code a series of particularly severe and intolerant laws for the protection of slavery was enacted. One of these provided the death-penalty for inciting 1855-1857 slaves to revolt or enticing a slave to leave his master; another imposed a penalty of two years' imprisonment for questioning the legality of slavery in the Territory; while all officers and attorneys were required to take an oath to support the Fugitive Slave Law. The Free Soilers were greatly chagrined at the turn affairs had taken and it began to look as if they were in a fair way to lose Kansas. At this juncture they resolved to call, upon their own initiative, a constitutional convention and organize a State government. This was done and the convention met at Topeka, October 23, 1855, framed a constitution prohibiting slavery, submitted it to the people, and it was adopted by a practically unanimous vote, the pro-slavery men taking no part in the election. In January following, the Free Soilers chose members of the legislature, a governor and other officers, and organized the State in pursuance of the constitution which they had framed and adopted. A little later the legislature met, elected United States senators, and sent a memorial to Congress, praying for the admission of Kansas to the Union. There were now two hostile governments in Kansas; one, the territorial government, which had the advantage of being organized in accordance with the forms of law and which had the sanction of the Federal authorities at Washington; the other, the government set up by the Free Soilers without the sanction of law. The free State party resolved to ignore as far as possible the territorial government and to treat it as fraudulent, but at the same time to render obedience to the national government, under whose authority it had been organized. This, of course, was a difficult matter, and required the display of great tact and wise leadership to avoid a conflict. As might be expected, collisions soon began to occur between the two hostile governments, resulting in violence and bloodshed. Meantime Congress had met, and after a long and bitter contest over the election of a Speaker it proceeded to consider the Kansas question. In a special message the President took up the events which had lately occurred in Kansas and recommended the passage of an enabling act for the admission of the State as soon as it should have a sufficient population. In alluding to the troubles in Kansas he said that the Emigrant Aid Societies were chiefly responsible; that the acts of the Free Soilers were unlawful and revolutionary; and asserted that if they should resist the government their acts would be considered as treason, 1855-1857 in which case the duty of the executive in the premises was plain. In the Senate a bill was brought forward by Stephen A. Douglas providing that as soon as Kansas should contain 93,000 inhabitants the territorial legislature should be empowered to call a convention for the purpose of framing a constitution and organizing a State. The House acted by appointing a committee of three to visit Kansas and make an investigation into the state of affairs existing there. Able speeches were made in both Houses, the Northern members generally defending the conduct of the Free Soilers in Kansas while the Southern members with equal ability defended the position of the pro-slavery men. Much ill feeling was manifested between the representatives of the two sections and several personal altercations occurred on the floor of Congress. On May 22, 1856, Senator Sumner, of Massachusetts, who a few days before in a speech on "the crime against Kansas" had severely criticised Senator Butler of South Carolina, was violently assaulted by Preston Brooks, a nephew of Senator Butler and a member of the lower House from South Carolina, who had taken exception to the remarks of the Massachusetts senator. Entering the Senate chamber he came upon Sumner unawares as he sat at his desk writing, and beat him over the head with a heavy cane until he fell unconscious to the floor. The assault came near ending the career of one of the most influential anti-slavery advocates in the United States. It created intense indignation throughout the North, but the assault was generally approved throughout the South as a deserving punishment of an abolitionist who had maliciously attacked an absent colleague who had never given him the slightest cause for offense.30 But the circumstances under which Sumner was assaulted and the testimonials of esteem which came to his assailant from all parts of the South stirred the North to the profoundest depths. In the House of Representatives a committee was appointed to investigate and report upon the affair, and a report was brought in favoring the expulsion of Brooks. But the necessary two-thirds could not be procured and he was therefore left alone. Soon afterward Brooks resigned, but was promptly reëlected by his constituents. Hardly anything could have contributed more to destroy cordial relations between the people of the two sections. 30 See Von Holst, "Constitutional History of the United States," vol. v. pp. 315-330; Pike, "First Blows of the Civil War,” p. 339. |