12 cate to have been something after this wise : The Missouri restriction was to be repealed, under pretence of “ accommodating a southern sentiment.” Southern gentlemen were to affect, not to seem anxious for the entrance of slavery into the territory, nor to anticipate any such result. The people of the free states were to be brought to jubilate over the new-born squatter-sovereignty faith, as a charm or fetish which would thereafter forever, secure them against all further political evil. In the mean time, Atchison was tp organize the Cossacks of the Missouri borders, and take possession in the name of slavery and squatter sovereignty, before the free state laggards could draw on their boots. It was probably in view of this programme, or something in substance the same, that their ablest debaters in congress, were selected to open the fire upon the “ abolitionists,” as the opponents of the repeal were called by its advocates. This was commenced in gallant style by Mr. Breckinridge, the now democratic candidate for vice president. In that speech, the “ harp of a thousand strings,” “ squatter or popular sovereignty,” was played on by the great musician to the following tune : “But, again, cannot the North, with her qver- ‘ whelming numbers, compete with us on these ‘ new theatres in the race of settlement and civil- ‘ ization, and must she not only violate the con- 1 stitution by shutting out half the states, com- * mon property holders with her; but, in the ‘ name of liberty, outrage liberty by erecting a ‘ despotism over the territories ?” In the pamphlet edition of this speech, the question is put in this form: “ Cannot you, of the free states, on this theory ‘ of ‘ popular sovereignty,’ compete successfully 1 with us of the slave states for supremacy in the ‘ territoties—you, who have some fifteen mjl- ‘ lions of free population, while we, of the slave ‘ states, have less than one half of that number ? ‘ If you cannot, then what becomes of your boast- ‘ ed superiority of free over slave institutions ?’■’— Globe Appendix, first session fib-irty-tlfird Congress, p. 442. This was the tune pitched by the “ chief musician,” and was responded to by the whole choir of under-performers, as well in congress, and by the press, as on the stump. - Sir, it wasan open challenge to the intelligent, enterprising, and industrious people of the free states, to enter the lists with the slave states, in the peaceful settlement of the territory, qu the newly-discovered principle of “ squatter sovereignty.” By this it. was implied, that there should be “ a fair field and no favor.” It was a distinct invitation to set free-state emigration against slave-state emigration, in which fair play was due from each party towards the other, and when, at least on the part of the free states, no unfairness was premeditated, and none anticipated from those who gave the challenge. No treacherous senator was suspected as being on the ground, diggingpitfalls, laying ambushments and assembling armed bands to waylay, rob, murder, and drive back, ree-state settlers, who had honorably entered the lists in their own tournament of peaceful settlement. But the damning proof is out before the sun, that while gentlemen of the south, were giving out these invidious challenges on this floor, their colaborers, or at least one of them, in this sad work of breaking time-honored compacts, and he, at the time a member of the other house of congress, was playing foul with the very men who were attracted to Kansas, by these challenges of open and fair competition. It is sad, indeed, to suspect that this challenge was given with a knowledge, that successful competition in the peaceful settlement of Kansas, by free-state men, would be defeated by fraud, or repelled by force; and yet the proof of the affirmative is almost irresistible. But the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Stephens,] the “fiery Tybalt” of slavery propagandism, was still more arrogant and defiant in the tone and temper of his challenges to free-state men, to try the efficacy of “ squatter sovereignty,” ip the peaceful settlement of Kansas. Mr. Stephens, (February 27, 1854, pamphlet edition of speech printed at office of Sentinel, Washington, District of Columbia, page 11,) speaking of the prospect of a free state being made out of Kansas, says : “ Why should you not be willing to remove ‘ this question forever from Congress, and leave ‘ it to tfie people of the Territories, according to ‘ the compromise of 1850 ? You have greatly the ‘ advantage of us in population. The white popu- ‘ lation of the United States is now over twenty ‘ millions. Of this number, the free states have ‘ over two to one, compared with the south. ‘ There are only a little over three million slaves. “ If immigration into the territories, therefore, ‘ should be assumed to go on in the ratio of popula- ‘ tion, we must suppose that there would be near ‘ seven white persons to one slave at least, and of ‘ the seven, two from the free states, to one from ‘ the south. With such an advantage, are. you 1 afraid to trust this question with your own peo- ‘ pie—men reared under the influence of your own ‘ boasted superior institutions ? With all the ‘ prejudices of birth and education against us, ‘ are you afraid to let them judge for themselves? ‘ Are your ‘free-born sons, who never breathed 1 the tainted air of slavery,’ such nincompoops, * that they cannot be trusted out, without their ‘ mothers’ leave ? ” Mr. Chairman, this is not only a challenge to the people of the free states, to enter the lists with the slave states, in the settlement of Kansas, but it is a challenge couched in the language of contempt and defiance. Its tone and manner were a warning to all free-state men, that the repeal of the Missouri compromise, was then, a foregone conclusion; and that if Kansas was rescued from the doom of slavery, it must be by taking up the glove thus insolently thrown in their faces. Comparing the achievements, hitherto, of the two sections of country—the slave and the free—in the successful settlement of new states, it was as rash as it was insolent. The haughty, confident, and even defiant tone assumed by the south towards free-state men,in relation to the settlement of Kansas, was then a mystery. It seemed at the time, wholly gratui
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=