KANSAS. 55 United States, 11 to the "bloody issue,” and urging them for that purpose to “organization and discipline of volunteer companies and preparation of ar ms !’ ’ Though one or two somewhat similar attempts have been made in our history, none have had so bad an aspect as this ; yet they were promptly discountenanced and put down. Before the adoption of the constitution of the United States, the “ State of Frankland” was projected, without lawful authority, on the territory of North Carolina, within the precise limits of what is now the State of Tennessee; and, though there was no local Territorial government over that then remote wilderness country, and though Indian hostilities were raging throughout its settlements, making it absolutely necessary, in the apprehension of the settlers, to establish some sort of local government for themselves, yet the movement was not tolerated for a moment by the lawful authorities, and was soon swept from existence. In Rhode Island, in 1841, the Dorr insurrection, as it was familiarly called, sought to set up, without the sanction of law, a State government in defiance of the existing State government of Rhode Island. But that movement was also promptly put down, and was from the beginning firmly discountenanced by the general government. On the present, as pn those occasions, the violators of law and order have had various pretexts for their irregularities, and some plausible accounts of alleged grievances, which are in the main ex parte, and of very questionable accuracy. It has been said that Kansas finds an example in the history of the admission of Michigan. But this is a misapprehension. The ordinance of 1787, enforced by acts of Congress, in pursuance of which Michigan was erected into a Territory, provided that a population of sixty thousand should entitle the State to admission. Having attained more than that population, Michigan formed a State constitution, and was admitted into the Union in June, 1836, with the single condition that the United States should fix its southern boundary, and that the assent of the State to this boundary should be given through “ a convention of delegates elected by the people of the State for the sole purpose of giving the assent herein required. ’ ’ Congress had power to fix this boundary without such assent. There were two conventions held, one assenting to and the other opposing this boundary, but on the 18th of January, 1837, Congress declared that “ a convention of delegates, elected by the people of the State of Michigan,” “did assent” to the boundary. This is all there is in it. There is no parallel between this case and that of Kansas. An impartial review of the facts, in the opinion of the undersigned, discloses that the authors of this Kansas movement have committed a series of grave errors, and have placed themselves in the wrong from the very beginning of the controversy. So soon as the Kansas-Nebraska bill was passed, active and noisy movements were set on foot to throw into Kansas a mass of voters from distant States for the avowed purpose of controlling its elections, and making it a free State. For this purpose Emigrant Aid Societies were organized in the New England States ; millions of money were subscribed; and with a vociferous agitation against slavery, large num
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=