As might be expected, this message of Pierce was entirely unsatisfactory to the anti-slavery, or free-State, party in Kansas. There had been strife, disorder, and war in Kansas. In the election for delegate to Congress, which had been held in November, 1854, and for the Territorial Legislature in March, 1855, there had been fraud, violence, and incursions of border ruffians from Missouri. The free-State men refused to recognize the validity of the Territorial Legislature referred to by Pierce, denied that its acts were binding; and they organized a counter government. The free-State party met in Convention at Topeka, October 23, 1855, formed a free-State Constitution, and submitted this to the people on December 15th, the same year. On January 5, 1856, at a free-State election Robinson was elected Governor of the State and the free-State men proceeded to make formal application, by petition presented February 26, 1856, for admission into the Union under the Topeka Constitution. While this party was not acting under the forms of law-the legal machinery of the Territory having come into the hands of their opponents by violence and fraud-they undoubtedly represented the majority of the people of the Territory. It was Pierce's policy to resist the free-State cause, and on February 11, 1856, he issued a proclamation against the Topeka movement, with intent to place on the side of the Territorial Government and the pro-slavery party, the whole force of the United States Government.

On March 12, 1856, Senator Douglas, Chairman of the Committee on Territories, to which Pierce's message of January 24th had been referred, presented to the Senate a long and formal report on the affairs of Kansas. This report denounced the Emigrant Aid Society which had been formed to promote anti-slavery migration to Kansas, held the Territorial Legislature to be legal and its acts binding, and denounced the Topeka movement as in defiance of the authority of Con

gress. Senator Collamer presented a minority report. He held the Topeka movement to be the only source of relief against fraud and usurpation, and "thus far this effort for redress is peaceful, constitutional, and right." Collamer recommended the repeal of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, thus restoring the Missouri restriction of 1820.

On March 17th, Douglas introduced a bill in harmony with his report, and on the 20th of March he made a notable speech covering the affairs of Kansas. This is one of Douglas' ablest speeches and the student would do well to consider it in connection with this speech of Sumner's. The bill of Douglas', which was pending in the Senate when Sumner spoke, May 19 and 20, 1856, provided:

"That, whenever it shall appear, by a census to be taken under the direction of the Governor, by the authority of the Legislature, that there shall be 93,420 inhabitants (that being the number required by the present ratio of representation for a member of Congress) within the limits hereafter described as the Territory of Kansas, the Legislature of said Territory shall be, and is hereby, authorized to provide by law for the election of delegates by the people of said Territory, to assemble in Convention and form a Constitution and State Government, preparatory to their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever, by the name of the State of Kansas."

Subsequently Senator Seward moved a substitute providing for the immediate admission of Kansas under the Topeka Constitution. These propositions provided the subject for the notable Congressional debate on Kansas affairs in the spring of 1856.

The editor of Sumner's works says:

"This speech found unexpected audience from an incident which followed its delivery. It became a campaign docu

ment in the Presidential election then at hand, and was circulated by the hundred thousand. Besides reprints in

newspapers, there were large pamphlet editions in Washington, New York, Boston, and San Francisco. Editions appeared in German and Welsh. It was reprinted in London, in a publication by Nassau W. Senior, the eminent publicist and economist, entitled American Slavery: A Reprint of an Article on Uncle Tom's Cabin in the Edinburgh Review, and of Mr. Sumner's Speech of the 19th and 20th of May, 1856." At the period of its delivery an intense excitement prevailed throughout the country. At the North there was a deep sense of wrong, with indignation at the pretensions of the Slave Power, yearning for a voice in Congress that should speak out the general sentiment.-Sumner's Works, vol. iv., p. 127.

3. This omission consists of a few introductory words on the character of the subject before him and the purpose of his speech. Sumner outlines his subject under three heads: 1. The Crime Against Kansas. 2. The Apologies for the Crime. 3. The True Remedy.

4. Sumner addresses himself to the charge of fanaticism, and he then replies briefly to the charge from Senator Butler and other Southerners that the North had been the first and chief offender in the early slave trade, that the South had received their slaves from Northern dealers. Sumner further rejoined that "the Northern merchants who catered for slavery in the years of the slave trade are lineal progenitors of the Northern men, with homes in these places, who lend themselvs to slavery in our day. It is true, too true, alas, that our fathers were engaged in this traffic; but that is no apology for it. Let us not follow the Senator from South Carolina to do the very evil which in another generation we condemn."

5. Sumner now proceeds to describe the Crime Against Kansas. This, he considers, consists in the fraudulent repeal

of the time-honored compromise of 1820, and the forcible introduction of slavery into the Territory. He exposes the fallacy and weakness in the doctrine of popular sovereignty and describes the disorders, invasions and troubles in Kansas. He then proceeds to incorporate into his speech extracts from letters and public utterances, as evidence of the spirit and purposes of the pro-slavery party and of the usurpation and wrongs of which the pro-slavery invaders of Kansas had been guilty. He proceeds then to the second part of his Speech, and reviews at length the Apologies for the Crime. These apologies he denounces as tyrannical, imbecile, and infamous. He then proceeds to discuss the remedies proposed.

6. It was this passage, chiefly, which provoked the assault of Brooks. The passage was certainly in bad taste and shows personal offensiveness, if not coarseness. Rhodes says in this connection :

A careful perusal of Butler's remarks, as published in the Congressional Globe, fails to disclose the reason of this bitter personal attack. His remarks were moderate. He made no reference to Sumner. His reply to Hale, though spirited, was dignified, and did not transcend the bounds of a fastidious parliamentary taste. Yet it must be said that his defence of Atchison, which to-day reads as a tribute to a generous, though rough and misguided man, was very galling to an ardent friend of the free-State party of Kansas, such as Sumner. Butler was a man of fine family, older in looks than his sixty years, courteous, a lover of learning, and a jurist of reputation. He was honored with the position of chairman of the Senate judiciary committee. When Sumner first came to the Senate, although he was an avowed Free-soiler, the relations between him and Butler were friendly; they were drawn together by a common love of history and literature. When he made his speech on the Kansas-Nebraska bill, Butler paid him a well-chosen compliment at which he expressed his gratifica

tion. In June, 1854, however, the two had a very warm discussion in the Senate on the Fugitive Slave law, growing out of the rendition of Burns, in which Butler replied to Sumner's forcible remarks with indignation. Afterwards Butler sent him word that their personal intercourse must be entirely cut off. The only reason which the South Carolina senator could assign for the present personal attack was that Sumner's vanity had been mortified from thinking that he did not come out of the controversy of 1854 with as much credit as he ought, and this was his opportunity for retaliation.

'But no one understanding Sumner's character can accept this as an explanation. There was nothing vindictive or revengeful in his nature. Besides, he was too much wrapped up in his own self-esteem to give more than a passing thought to a social slight from a slave-holding senator, even though he were a leader in the refined and cultivated society of Washington. Sumner's speech seems excessively florid to the more cultivated taste of the present; he might have made a more effective argument, and one stronger in literary quality without giving offence. The speech occasioned resentment not so much on account of severe political denunciation, as on account of the line of personally insulting metaphor. Yet he did not transgress the bounds of parliamentary decorum, for he was not called to order by the President or by any other The vituperation was unworthy of him and his cause, and the allusion to Butler's condition while speaking, ungenerous and pharisaical. The attack was especially unfair, as Butler was not in Washington, and Sumner made note of his absence. It was said that Seward, who read the speech before delivery, advised Sumner to tone down its offensive remarks, and he and Wade regretted the personal attack. But Sumner was not fully "conscious of the stinging force of his language." To that, and because he was terribly in earnest, must be attributed the imperfections of the speech. He

senator.