It was when Mr. Buchanan entered upon the duties of the Presidency that this condition of things in Kansas came to its culmination. The pro-slavery party in the Territory, in general violent and lawless enough, in one respect kept themselves on the side of law. They sustained the Territorial government which had been organized under the Act of Congress, and obtained control of its legislature. The anti-slavery party repudiated this legislature, alleging, with some truth, that frauds and violence had been committed in the election.
To meet this wrong they committed another. They held a convention at Topeka, framed a State constitution, elected a governor and legislature to take the place of those who were governing the Territory under the organic law, and applied to Congress for admission into the Union. They had thus put themselves out of pale of law. Congress at the end of a violent struggle rejected the application for admission into the Union, under the Topeka constitution, and recognized the authority of the Territorial government. This took place in the session of Congress which terminated on the day before Mr. Buchanan’s inauguration. As President of the United States, he had no alternative but to recognize and uphold the Territorial government. The fact that the legislature of that government was in the hands of the pro-slavery party, made the course which he adopted seem as if he favored their pro-slavery designs, while, in truth, he had no object to subserve but to sustain, as he was officially obliged to sustain, the government which Congress had recognized as the lawful government of the Territory.
This government at once proceded to call a convention, to assemble at Lecompton, and frame a State constitution. It was now the President’s hope that the anti-slavery party would cease their opposition to the Territorial government, obey the laws, and elect delegates to the Lecompton convention in sufficient number to insure a free constitution. But for the ten months which followed from the 4th of March, 1857, to the first Monday in January, 1858, this party continued to adhere to their Topeka constitution, and to defy the Territorial government. In the meantime the peace had to be kept by troops of the United States to prevent open war between the two parties.
The President, soon after his inauguration, sent the Hon. Robert J. Walker to Kansas, as Territorial governor, in place of Governor Geary, who had resigned. Governor Walker was directed, if possible, to persuade the anti-slavery party to unite with their opponents in forming a State constitution, and to take care that the election of delegates to the convention should be conducted so as to express the true voice of the people on the question of slavery or freedom. The governor performed this duty with entire impartiality. The laws which provided for the election of delegates to the convention, and for the registration of voters, were just and equitable. The governor administered them fairly; he exhorted the whole body of registered electors to vote. Nevertheless, the party that adhered to the Topeka government and refused to recognize the Territorial legislature, stayed away from the polls. The consequence was that a large majority of pro-slavery delegates were elected to the convention which was alone authorized, under the principles which, in this country, recognize the sovereignty of the people, and require it to be exercised through the ballot-box, under the superintendence of the existing government, to form a constitution.
While these things were taking place in Kansas, in the summer of 1857, while a portion of the inhabitants were in a state of rebellion against the only government that had any lawful authority; while the friends of freedom were setting the example of disloyalty to the established authority of the Territory, and the friends of slavery were, in one respect, the law-abiding part of the community; while the revolutionary Topeka legislature was in session, claiming to be the lawful legislature, and a turbulent and dangerous military leader was at the head of the anti-slavery party, in open opposition to the only lawful government of the Territory, presses and pulpits throughout the North teemed with denunciations of the new President, who had not allowed revolutionary violence to prevail over the law of the land. At length there came from the State of Connecticut a memorial to the President, signed by forty-three of its distinguished citizens, among them several eminent clergymen, imputing to him a violation of his official oath, and informing him that they prayed the Almighty to preserve him from the errors of his ways. To this he replied with spirit and with a clear exposition of the mistakes into which ignorant zeal in the cause of freedom had led those who thus addressed him. His reply, dated August 15, 1857, is worthy of being reproduced:
“When I entered upon the duties of the Presidential office, on the fourth of March last, what was the condition of Kansas? This Territory had been organized under the Act of Congress of 30th May, 1854, and the government in all its branches was in full operation. A governor, secretary of the Territory, chief justice, two associate justices, a marshal, and district attorney had been appointed by my predecessor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and were all engaged in discharging their respective duties. A code of laws had been enacted by the Territorial legislature, and the judiciary were employed in expounding and carrying these laws into effect. It is quite true that a controversy had previously arisen respecting the validity of the election of members of the Territorial legislature and of the laws passed by them; but at the time I entered upon my official duties, Congress had recognized this legislature in different forms and by different enactments. The delegate elected to the House of Representatives, under a Territorial law, had just completed his term of service on the day previous to my inauguration. In fact, I found the government of Kansas as well established as that of any other Territory. Under these circumstances, what was my duty? Was it not to sustain this government? to protect it from the violence of lawless men, who were determined either to rule or ruin? to prevent it from being overturned by force? in the language of the Constitution, to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed?’ It was for this purpose, and this alone, that I ordered a military force to Kansas to act as a posse comitatus in aiding the civil magistrate to carry the laws into execution. The condition of the Territory at the time, which I need not portray, rendered this precaution absolutely necessary. In this state of affairs, would I not have been justly condemned had I left the marshal and other officers of a like character impotent to execute the process and judgments of courts of justice established by Congress, or by the Territorial legislature under its express authority, and thus have suffered the government itself to become an object of contempt in the eyes of the people? And yet this is what you designate as forcing ‘the people of Kansas to obey laws not their own, nor of the United States’; and for doing which you have denounced me as having violated my solemn oath. I ask, what else could I have done, or ought I to have done? Would you have desired that I should abandon the Territorial government, sanctioned as it had been by Congress, to illegal violence, and thus renew the scenes of civil war and bloodshed which every patriot in the country had deplored? This would, indeed, have been to violate my oath of office, and to fix a damning blot on the character of my administration.
“I most cheerfully admit that the necessity for sending a military force to Kansas to aid in the execution of the civil law, reflects no credit upon the character of our country. But let the blame fall upon the heads of the guilty. Whence did this necessity arise? A portion of the people of Kansas, unwilling to trust to the ballot-box—the certain American remedy for the redress of all grievances—undertook to create an independent government for themselves. Had this attempt proved successful, it would of course have subverted the existing government, prescribed and recognized by Congress, and substituted a revolutionary government in its stead. This was a usurpation of the same character as it would be for a portion of the people of Connecticut to undertake to establish a separate government within its chartered limits for the purpose of redressing any grievance, real or imaginary, of which they might have complained against the legitimate State government. Such a principle, if carried into execution, would destroy all lawful authority and produce universal anarchy.”
And again: “I thank you for the assurances that you will ‘not refrain from the prayer that Almighty God will make my administration an example of justice and beneficence.’ You can greatly aid me in arriving at this blessed consummation, by exerting your influence in allaying the existing sectional excitement on the subject of slavery, which has been productive of much evil and no good, and which, if it could succeed in attaining its object, would ruin the slave as well as his master. This would be a work of genuine philanthropy. Every day of my life I feel how inadequate I am to perform the duties of my high station without the continued support of Divine Providence, yet, placing my trust in Him and in Him alone, I entertain a good hope that He will enable me to do equal justice to all portions of the Union, and thus render me an humble instrument in restoring peace and harmony among the people of the several States.”
The condition of Kansas continued for some time longer to be disturbed by the revolutionary proceedings of the adherents of the Topeka constitution. The inhabitants of the city of Lawrence undertook to organize an insurrection throughout the Territory. This town had been mainly established by the abolition societies of the Eastern States. It had some respectable and well behaved citizens, but it was the headquarters of paid agitators, in the employment of certain anti-slavery organizations. It became necessary for Governor Walker to suppress this threatened insurrection. The military leader of the Free State party undertook, in July, to organize his party into volunteers, and to take the names of all who refused enrollment. The professed purpose of this organization was to protect the polls at an election in August of a new Topeka legislature. Many of the conservative citizens, who had hitherto acted with the Free State party, were subjected to personal outrages for refusing to be enrolled. To meet this revolutionary military organization, and to prevent the establishment of an insurrectionary government at Lawrence, the Territorial Governor had to retain in Kansas a large body of United States troops. The insurgent general and his military staff denied the authority of the Territorial laws, and counselled the people not to participate in the elections ordered under the authority of the Lecompton convention.[[33]]
The Lecompton convention, which met for the second time on the 2d of September, and then proceeded to frame a State constitution, adjourned on the 7th of November. Although this constitution recognized slavery, the convention took steps to submit the question to the people of the Territory, in a free ballot, by all the white male inhabitants, before it should be sent to Congress for admission into the Union. It would have been more regular to have submitted the whole constitution to the people, although the organic Act did not require it; but on the question of slavery, which was the vital one, it can not be pretended that the convention acted unfairly. The election was directed to be held on the 21st of December, (1857), and the ballots were to be “Constitution with Slavery,” and “Constitution with no Slavery.” Thus the opportunity was again presented for the people of the Territory to vote upon the question on which they were divided; and again the anti-slavery party, with the exception of a few hundred of the voters, abstained from voting. The result was that there were 6,226 votes in favor of the “Constitution with Slavery,” and only 569 against it.