Studies in American History 
395 
England and in the older South who, realizing the effects 
of loss of population, opposed migration to the West. 
It was clearly to the interest of Tennesseeans to migrate to 
Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas between 1850 and 1860, rather 
than to Kansas. Colonists of the lower South had even less 
incentive or necessity to migrate to any area so far away and 
so different as to climatic and soil conditions. The slavery 
question was involved, but it is hard to see how the movement 
of population would have been very different had there been 
no slaves in the country. The regular forces that have played 
a part in determining the direction and destination of colonists 
thruout our history were effective during the Kansas struggle. 
Agitation never ceased, but the lower South left it to the peo- 
ple of the upper South to win Kansas for slavery. Indeed the 
task was boldly put up to them at the beginning by a Mobile 
journal : . 
The border States were quite anxious for the bill [Kansas-Nebraska 
’ and the planting States yielded to their solicitations and aided 
its passage; let then the former which are nearer to the territories and 
can better spare citizens, pour into Kansas as many friendly to the 
South as possible, either with or without slaves, and if money is necessary 
for the work let it be raised by associations as in the North. . . . 
What say Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia 
A South Carolina paper opposed migration to Kansas from 
that state : 
We negative the idea that South Carolina should send men to Kansas — 
and why? Simply because she cannot spare them. . . . For a few 
years past our State has been decreasing in political power because she 
has been severely taxed by the loss of citizens to populate other States; 
but this diminution in number is of far less importance than that occa- 
sioned by the emigration to Kansas, because the former carried with 
them their slaves to settle slave States, and the latter are lessening our 
tax paying voters who emigrate to populate a government territory, 
whose future admission as a State is so wrapped in doubt as to make 
it prudent not to carry slaves there at any rate.®® 
The Charleston Standard took the position that the South 
was not populous enough to compete with the North in the 
32 Mobile (Ala.) Advertiser, 1854, clipping- in Webb, Kansas Scrapbook, I, 93. For 
valuable contributions dealing with the Kansas struggle, see : Elmer LeRoy Craik, 
“Southern Interest in Territorial Kansas, 1854-1858”, in Collections of the Kansas State 
Historical Society (Topeka, 1923), XV, 334-450; James C. Malin, “The Proslavery Back- 
ground of the Kansas Struggle”, in Mississippi Valley Historical Revie^v, X, 285-305 
(December, 1923). 
Winnsborough (S.C.) Register, quoted in the Daily Republic (Buffalo, N.Y.), April 
24, 1866, clipping in Webb, Kansas Scrapbook, XI, 153. 
