The Hon. Theodore G. Hunt, of La., who was one of the few Southern Representatives in Congress that voted against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, addressed a public meeting of his constituents on the 15th instant in a speech in which, whilst defending his course upon that subject, he conclusively stated the reason that would prevent Kansas from being a slave State:
In addition to the view I presented of good faith, I also urged in my speech on the Nebraska bill that, apart from abstractions, there was no practical advantage to be attained for the South by opening the Territory in question to the admission of slavery. And I still retain that opinion. I believe that Kansas and Nebraska are both destined by nature to be free States. No prudent slaveholder will leave the genial soil and climate of the South, and take his slaves with him, merely to establish the condition of slavery in the less productive and colder region of Kansas or Nebraska. The author of the Nebraska bill himself, and leading Southern gentlemen, who advocated the bill, also entertained the opinion I expressed.
Mr. Douglas said: “I do not believe there is a man in Congress who thinks it could be permanently a slaveholding country. I have no idea that it could.”
Mr. Badger, or North Carolina, said: “I have no more idea of seeing a slave population in either of them I have of seeing it in Massachusetts, not a whit.”
Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, said: “As far as I am concerned, I must say that I do not expect that this bill is to give us of the South anything, but merely to accommodate something like the sentiment of the South.”
Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, said: “Does any man believe that you will have a slaveholding State in Kansas and Nebraska? I confess that for a moment I permitted such an illusion to rest on my mind.”
Mr. Jones, of Tennessee, said: As I told the honorable chairman of this committee on Territories, and as I have expressed myself everywhere when I have given my opinion on the subject, I was content to let this matter stand as it was, because, in my judgment, there was nothing practical in it.”
There is nothing in the present state of things that shakes my conviction in the destination of Kansas to be a free State. The lawless violence of certain Missourians to control the election and mould the sovereignty of Kansas must fall of its object. The condition of Kansas as to slavery will be determined ultimately by the influence of the law of nature and the principles of human interest, almost as certain in their operation as that law itself. Population, which was flowing rapidly into the Territory, has been checked and greatly obstructed for some time past; but thousands who have settled there opposed to the institution of slavery; and a vast number who, it is believed, will settle there as soon as law and order are established, will join the opposition. Besides, I understand that the number of emigrants going to Missouri bona fide to live there does not exceed the number of emigrants from that state returning to their ancient establishments. Now, if this information be correct, Kansas will in due time, when prepared for admission into the Union, present herself to Congress for admission with a constitution prohibitory of slavery. To her admission under the case supposed there could be no serious objection on the part of the South; for the doctrine is justly avowed by her that when a State is about to be admitted into the Union, that States has a right to decide for itself whether it will or will not have slavery within its limits.
But if I am mistaken in the opinion that Kansas will present herself at the right time to Congress with a constitution prohibitory of slavery, and, on the contrary, by any possibility she should be admitted as a slaveholding Sates, still, I repeat, I am convinced, from the nature of her soil, from the number of foreigners and citizens from the free States who have settled, and who will hereafter settle within her limits, and from the well known aversion of those persons to the institution of slavery, that her career as a slaving State would be a very short one, and that her destiny is fixed by the law of Nature, and the circumstances averted to, as a non-slaveholding State.
Practically, then, the South had nothing to gain by a repeal of the Missouri compromise. Her own fertile lands, suitable for the profitable culture of her great staples, and situated in a climate congenial to the health of her laborers, afforded her, in their immense area, a space far beyond her powers for cultivation for any series of ages yet to come. I condemned the lust for lands which the South did not want, and which honor called upon her not to invade or to acquire by injustice.
SOURCE: “Will Kansas be a Slave State?” Daily American Organ, Washington, D.C., Friday, September 28, 1855, p. 2
