USA > New York > Erie County > Elma > History of the town of Elma, Erie County, N.Y. : 1620 to 1901 > Part 16
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29
More effectual provision ought to be made for the restitution of fugitive slaves."
These resolutions were warmly opposed by most of the Demo- cratic Senators from the Slave States as making no concessions at all to the South. That the declaration, that slavery did not exist in New Mexico, precludes its admission there, etc., etc.
Mr. Thomas H. Benton, Democratic Senator from Missouri, and a life-long slave holder said, "Slavery had been abolished by Mexican law before we acquired the countries; that African slavery had never existed in Mexico in the form in which it existed in the States of this Union, and that if Mexican law was now in force in New Mexico and California, no slave holder from the Union would carry a slave thither except to set him free."
He affirmed these three points: 1st. "Slavery was abolished in California and New Mexico before we got them." 2nd. "Even if not abolished, no person would carry a slave to those countries, to be held under such law." 3d. "Slavery could not exist there except by positive law yet to be passed."
On the right of the slave holder to take his property into the territories, he said, "The citizens of all the states, free and slave, can not carry his property into the territories, neither can he carry that which is only property by state law. Every Slave State has a servile code of its own. The owner cannot carry his slave State Law with him into the territories or into another state; he must take the law which he finds there."
This doctrine was not acceptable to Mr. Calhoun and the ruling part of the Democratic party.
As John C. Calhoun, Senator from South Carolina, and leader of that party in the South voiced the sentiments of the slave holders generally, to give some of his statements in the debate in Congress on the admission of California, will show their position and demands on the slavery question at that time. He said, "The Union is in danger. The cause of this danger was the dis- content at the South, and this discontent was found in the belief that they could not with honor and safety remain in the Union."
One of the causes was the long continued agitation of the slave question at the North. But the primary cause was in the fact that the equilibrium between the two sections at the time of the adoption of the Constitution had been destroyed. The first of the series of acts by which this had been done was the ordinance
173
of 1787, by which the South had been excluded from all the north- western region (all north of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi Rivers). The next was the Missouri Compromise, excluding them from all of the Louisiana Territory north of 36° 30' except the State of Missouri; and now, the North was endeavoring to appro- priate to herself the territory recently acquired from Mexico; from which the South was, if possible, to be excluded.
He censured Congress for receiving petitions against slavery extension. He disapproved of the plan of Mr. Clay as incapable of saving the Union.
Having shown how the Union could not be saved, he proceeded to answer the question, how it could be saved.
"There is but one way certain: justice must be done the South by a full and final settlement of all the questions at issue. The North must concede to the South an equal right in the acquired territory and fulfill the stipulations respecting fugitive slaves; must cease the agitation of the slave question and join in an amendment of the Constitution restoring to the South the power she possessed of protecting herself, before the equilibrium between the two sections had been destroyed by the action of the govern- ment." (This was spoken in 1850.)
Mr. Daniel Webster, Whig Senator from Massashusetts, spoke at length on the resolutions of Mr. Clay and in reply to Mr. Cal- houn. He said: "that a change had taken place since the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Both sections then held slavery to be equally an evil, moral and political; it was inhuman and cruel; it weakened the social fabric and rendered labor less productive. The eminent men of the South held it to be an evil, a scourge and a curse. The framers of the Constitution in considering how to deal with it, concluded that it could not be continued if the impor- tation of slaves should cease. The prohibition of the importation after twenty years was proposed and finally agreed to; a term which some Southern gentlemen, Mr. Madison for one, thought too long.
The ordinance of 1787 received the unanimous support of the South; a measure which Mr. Calhoun had said was the first in a series of measures which enfeebled that section. Mr. Calhoun had said that there had always been a majority in favor of the North. If that is so, the North has acted very liberally or very weakly; for they had seldom exercised their power. The truth was, the general lead in politics for three-fourths of the time since 1787 had been Southern lead. The Southern Senators say we deprive them of the right to go into the newly acquired territory with their property. We do not prevent them from going into those territories with what is in general law, called property. But these
174
Salve States have by their local laws created a property in persons and they cannot carry those local laws with them. Slavery is created and exists by local law which is limited to a certain section ; and now, it is asked that Congress shall establish a local law in other territories to enable Southern Senators to carry their partic- ular law with them. No man can hold a slave unless the local law accompany him."
Mr. William H. Seward, Whig Senator from New York, in addressing the Senate said: "It is now avowed by the Honorable Senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun) that nothing will satisfy the Slave States but a compromise that will convince them that they can remain in the Union consistently with their honor and their safety. And what are the concessions which will have that effect?" These are his words:
"There is but on way certain: Justice must be done the South by a full and final settlement of all the questions at issue. The North must concede to the South an equal right in the acquired territory and fulfill the stipulations respecting fugitive slaves; must cease the agitation of the slave question, and join in an amendment of the Constitution restoring to the South the power she possessed of protecting herself before the equilibrium between the two sections had been destroyed by the action of the govern- ment."
"It is said that the Slave States are in danger of losing political power by the admission of the new States. Well, sir, is there anything new in that? The Slave States have always been losing political power and they always will be while the have any to lose. At first, twelve of the thirteen states were Slave States; now only fifteen of the thirty are Slave States. The South demands the guaranty against the abolition of slavery in the District of Colum- bia or they will have war, secession. When you have declared war against us, what shall hinder us from declaring that slavery shall cease in the national capitol? You say you will not submit to the exclusion of slaves from the new territories. Can you pro- pagate slavery by the sword? You say you cannot submit to the freedom with which slavery is discussed in the Free States. Will war or war for slavery arrest, or even moderate that discussion? No, sir: that discussion will not cease; war will only inflame it to a greater height."
"Slavery has really nothing to fear; it has a reliable and accom- modating ally in a party in the Free States, which though it claims to be, and doubtless is, in many respects a party of progress, finds its sole security for political power in the support and aid of slavery in the Slave States. Of course, I do not include in that party those who are now co-operating in maintaining the cause
175
of freedom against slavery. But it is only just and candid that I should bear witness to its fidelity to the interests of slavery."
Being asked by Mr. Lewis Cass, Democratic Senator from Michigan, if he believed there is a man in the Senate from the North whose course is influenced by his fidelity to slavery, Mr. Seward replied: "I think it was Mr. Jefferson who said 'that the natural ally of slavery in the South was the Democratic party of the North.'" A Senator replied that it was Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Seward, said: "I have heard it attributed to Mr. Jefferson. However that may be, I believe it. I assail the motives of no Senator. I acknowledge the patriotism, the wisdom, the purity of every member of this body. I have never assailed the motives of honorable Senators in any instance, I never shall. I ask leave to say, that such as I described is, in my view, the political organi- zation of the parties of this country; that slavery has the support, the toleration, (given honestly and from patriotic motives, I admit,) of the party to which I referred, and that its alliance with slavery constitutes its tower of strength."
The foregoing shows the feeling that existed between the North and the South on the slavery question in 1850.
The Fugitive Slave Law passed September 18th, 1850 and signed by President Millard Fillmore, was especially objectionable to the humane instincts of most of the people of the Free States. Mr. John Van Buren in a letter dated April 4th, 1851, to a Massa- chusetts Convention, declared the act unconstitutional, because Congress had no power to legislate on the subject; the duty of surrendering slaves devolving on the state, to be executed by state laws, tribunals, and functionaries. That view was taken by many learned men in the North and by many Southern men of the State Rights School.
Within the first year of its existence, more persons were seized in the Free States as fugitive slaves than during the preceeding sixty years. Many persons who had lived in the North in un- challenged freedom from fifteen to twenty years were seized and carried away into life-long slavery; and the numerous cases of kidnapping free negroes and taking them to slavery, tended to increase the feeling of opposition to the whole scheme of slavery by the great mass of the people of the Free States.
-
The persistent determination of the slave holding Democrats in the debates in Congress on the Oregon question, and on the admission of California, and on the territorial government of the territory acquired from Mexico, the repeal of the Missouri Com- promise act of 1820, the Kansas-Nebraska bill, known as the Squatter Sovereignty Bill, passed in May, 1854, and the decision of the Dred Scott case by the United States Supreme Court, were
176
like fire brands at the North, and served to unite the great mass of the Whig party of the North with the Free Soil part of the Democratic party in opposition to any further extension of slavery or more slave territory.
· The decision of the United States Supreme Court, at the 1855 and 1856 term, in the Dred Scott case, was not made public until after the inauguration of Mr. Buchanan in 1857, but enough was known so that it was used against the Democratic party in the campaign of 1856.
Judge Taney, in giving the opinion of the Court said, "Dred Scott being a negro, and descended from slaves, was not a citizen, and no state could make its slaves citizens; and he had no right to bring suit for his liberty ; that neither Dred Smith nor his family were made free by being carried into St. Louis, that being in territory North of 36° 31' north latitude." Dred's freedom was claimed on the ground that he had been taken by his master into the Free State of Illinois, and there retained some two or three years.
Judge Taney says: "that the claim was not properly before the Court; that the plaintiff is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution, and that the Circuit Court, for that reason, had no jurisdiction, and the suit must be dismissed. Several other Judges assented to the views as expressed by Judge Taney.
Judge Daniel went further and said, "that ordinance of 1787 was only equal in constitutionality and validity, with the Missouri Compromise, and was void." This opinion opened the door for slave holders to take their slaves into any of the Free States, and caused great consternation throughout the North. Mr. Webster, the great constitutional lawyer, had said in 1850, "that no man can be held as a slave unless the local law accompany him."
Justice McLean from Ohio, one of the members of the United States Supreme Court, in his opinion dissenting from that of the Court in the Dred Scott case says, "Will it be said that the slave is taken as property, the same as other property which the master may own? To this I answer, that colored persons are made property by the law of the state, and no such power has been given to Congress. The Constitution in express terms recognizes the status of slavery as founded on the municipal law; 'No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof,' etc. Now, unless the fugitive escape from a place where, by the munici- pal law he is held to labor, this provision affords no remedy to the master. Suppose a slave escape from a territory where slavery is not authorized by law, can he be reclaimed?"
177
From December 13th, 1852, the attempt to organize the Terri- tories of Kansas and Nebraska caused exciting and heated debate in Congress and throughout the country. Finally, the bill passed both houses and was signed by President Pierce May 24th, 1854. In the House, the vote was fifty-seven Democrats and twelve Whigs from the Slave States, with fourty-four Democrats from the Free States-total 113. Against the bill, the vote was seven Whigs and two Democrats from the Slave States and fourty-four Whigs, fourty-four Democrats and three Free Soil, from the Free States- total ninety-one.
A large majority of the slave holding Whigs of the South having joined the slave holding Democrats in their slavery extension scheme, made nearly a solid pro-slavery party in the South while the Whig party was apparently on the point of dissolution, it being divided on the slavery question.
The Democratic party North, and the Native American party were about equally divided, the Abolition party, making the balance, of the Northern voters were all greatly excited over the abomina- tions practiced under the Fugitive Slave Law and the determination and success of the South in the repeal of the Missouri Compro- mise act of 1820, and in the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act which gave to the South the privilege of taking their slaves into the territories.
Before the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act, nearly all of these territories were covered by Indian Reservations on which settlement by the whites was strictly forbidden except by govern- ment agents and missionaries. The government agents were Democrats and violent partisans of slavery extension. Just before the final passage of the bill to organize the territories, treaties were quietly made with the Delaware, Otoe, Kickapoo, Kaskakia, Shawnee, Sacks, Fox, and other tribes of Indians, whereby the greater part of the eastern portion of these territories was suddenly allowed to be opened to white settlers. This whole arrangement was known to the Missourians and to people in the other Slave States, who had been organizing "Blue Lodges," "Social Bands," "Sons of the South," and other societies, with the intent of taking possession of Kansas in behalf of slavery.
Kansas was opened to settlement by proclamation of President Pierce, May 30th, 1854, and hundreds of Missourians were ready and crossed into the territory, selecting each his piece of land, in that way establishing a kind of pre-emption upon all that region.
At the North, Emigrant Aid Societies were organized to help Free State men to go to Kansas. To the close of President Pierce's administration, the slave holders all through the South, backed by the Government at Washington, used every means within their
178
reach to make Kansas a Slave State; and by intimidation, murder, "Border Ruffian Raids," and illegal voting, tried to force slave laws and a Slave Constitution upon the people.
Governors for the Territories were appointed by the President, and it was expected that they would, so far as possible, see to it that the interests of slavery were protected.
Andrew H. Reeder of Pennsylvania, the first Governor for Kan- sas took the oath of office, July 7th, 1854, and reached Kansas in October. Soon after his arrival he commenced the work of or- ganizing the Territory. His proclamation for the election of a Territorial Delegate to Congress did not provide for the election of a Territorial Legislature. This failure was not pleasing to the Missourians. No census had been taken previous to the election of the Delegate.
The election, although carried by an invasion of Missourians, was not contested. The total vote was 2838 of which 1729 were given by Missourians who came across the Missouri River to vote and then returned. At one voting place, 604 votes were polled, of which only twenty were legal, 584 were from Missouri. John W. Whitfield, the slave holder's candidate at this election received 2268 votes, to 570 for the other candidate. By taking the Mis- souri vote, 1729, from the total vote received by Whitfield, 2268, it would leave 539 votes for Whitfield by residents of Kansas, and 570 against him.
1855.
Early in 1855, George Reeder had a census taken, and arrange- ments were made for an election of members to form a Territorial Legislature. The census showed a total population of 8,501, of which 2,905 were voters, and 242 were slaves. At the election for members of the Legislature, only 831 legal electors voted, the total vote being 6,320. An invasion from Missouri carried the election by storm and a majority of the members elected received certifi- cates of election from the Governor.
"The Platte Argus," a Missouri paper, in an editorial on this election said: "It is admitted that the Missourians have con- quered Kansas; our advise is to hold it or die in the attempt." The Legislature was called by the Governor to meet at Pawnee City on the Kansas River, nearly 100 miles from the Missouri border. The Legislature was immediately adjourned over the Governor's veto, to Shawnee Mission, directly on the line of Missouri. This Legis- lature passed one act, whereby the laws of Missouri generally were adopted and declared to be the laws of Kansas, and other acts, specially upholding and fortifying slavery; Section twelve of which
179
reads as follows: "If any free person, by speaking or writing, shall assert or mention, that persons have not the right to hold slaves in this Territory, or shall introduce into this Territory, print, publish, write, circulate, or cause to be introduced into the Territory, or written, printed, published and circulated in this Territory, any book, paper, magazine, pamphlet or circular, containing any de- nial of the right of persons to hold slaves in this Territory; such person shall be deemed guilty of felony, and punished by imprison- ment at hard labor, for a term not less than two years."
This Legislature, whose acts were systematically vetoed by Gov- ernor Reeder, but passed over his head, memoralized the President for the removal of Reeder. He went to Washington and placed the whole condition before President Pierce, and urged the cause of the people against invasion. When the President found that the Governor could not be used to further the cause of slavery in Kansas, as against the actual settlers in the Territory, he asked for Reeder's resignation, which the Governor refused, and the Pres- ident removed him August 16th, 1855. The same day the Presi- dent appointed Wilson Shannon of Ohio, as Governor of Kansas.
Daniel Woodson, the Secretary of the Territory, acted as Gover- nor from August 16th, 1855, to September 7th, 1855, the date on which Shannon arrived in Kansas. Shannon on his way to Kansas stopped at Westport, Missouri, the headquarters of border ruf- fians. In a speech at that place he said, "He considered the Legis- lature which had recently adjourned to Shawnee Mission, a legal assembly; that its laws were binding on the authorities and on every citizen of the Territory; that he was for slavery in Kansas." He assumed the duties of Governor, September 7th, 1855, and held until August 18th, 1856.
The actual settlers of Kansas were not willing to submit to the impudent and hostile usurpation which had elected Whitfield as Delegate to Congress and imposed on them a fraudulent legislature. They held a mass-convention at Big Springs on September 5th, 1855, where they repudiated the laws and officers imposed on Kan- sas by the Border Ruffian invasion, and refused to submit to them. A Delegate Convention was called, to be held at Topeka, September 19th, where an election for Delegate to Congress was called, to be held on the second Tuesday of October.
Ex-Governor Reeder was nominated for Delegate at this Con- vention, while Whitfield was the Candidate of the Pro-slavery party. Both were elected by their respective parties.
On October 23d, 1855, the actual settlers organized a Constitu- tional Convention at Topeka, and formed a Free State Constitution, under which they asked Congress for admission into the Union as a State.
180
The 34th Congress assembled at Washington, December 3d, 1855. Whitfield was there as Delegate, and Reeder as Contestant. The House on March 19th, 1856, resolved to send a special committee to Kansas to inquire into the anarchy which prevailed there. The committee composed of William A. Howard of Michigan, John Sherman of Ohio and Mordecai Oliver of Missouri, immediately went to Kansas and spent several weeks in taking testimony. On their return they reported :
FIRST. That each election in the Territory held under the organ- ic or alleged Territorial law, had been carried by organized inva- sion from the State of Missouri, by which the people of the Territory have been prevented from exercising the rights secured to them by their organic law.
SECOND. That the alleged Territorial Legislature was an ille- gally constituted body, and had no power to pass valid laws; and that their enactments are therefore null and void. .
THIRD. That these alleged laws have not, as a general thing, been used to protect persons and property and to punish wrong, but for unlawful purposes.
FOURTH. That the election, under which sitting Delegate John W. Whitfield holds his seat, was not held in pursuance of any valid law.
FIFTH. That the election, under which Andrew H. Reeder claims a seat, was not held in pursuance of any valid law.
SIXTH. That Andrew H: Reeder received a greater number of the votes of resident citizens for Delegate than did John W. Whit- field.
SEVENTH. That in the present condition of the Territory, a fair election cannot be held without a new census, a stringent and well guarded election law, the selection of impartial judges, and the presence of the United States troops at every place of election."
Whitfield held his seat to the end of that Congress. A bill ad- mitting Kansas as a State under her Free State Constitution, passed the House by a vote of ninety-nine to ninety-seven. The Senate which was strongly pro-slavery, defeated the bill.
Governor Shannon, it will be seen, came to Kansas in a bad time, excitement was running high. His speech at Westport was in the line of the spirit of the Missouri border ruffian element, to make Kansas a slave state; but he soon found that he was standing on dangerous ground, for the Free State men were a large majority in the Territory, and they demanded their rights under the act of Congress organizing the Territory. The Slave State party urged him to see that the laws passed by the bogus legislature, were en- forced. During the winter of 1855 and 1856, that party matured their plans for burning Lawrence, which took place May 21st, 1856.
181
This was really the beginning of the Kansas war. Their plan also included the getting control of the Legislature, which was called to meet at Topeka on July 4th. Another move was to completely stop all opposition to Kansas becoming a Slave State.
This was to be effected by enforcing the laws enacted by their bogus Legislature, and especially Section 12-(for this section see page 180). This law, if enforced, would send every Free State man in the Territory to the penitentiary for not less than two years, and with the whole power of the Federal Government to see that these laws were enforced, there remained but little hope that Kansas could be saved from the slave power.
Delegations were sent from Kansas to notify the Governors and other influential persons in the Free States of the plot. The eastern press took up the cry of Free Soil and Free Speech, and the report of the committee which had been sent by Congress to look after the anarchy which existed in Kansas, which had been, and was being printed by every Free Soil paper in the Northern States, created such an excited state of feeling among the masses of people as to greatly alarm the leaders of the Democratic party at Wash- ington, and the enforcement of Section 12 was dropped.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.