APPENDIX. 
361 
pie on the fifteenth of December, and by them approved, by a very large 
majority — men of all parties voting. 
Such, in brief, is the history of the constitutional movement in Kansas; 
and, if this is a party movement, it is difficult to see in what way a consti¬ 
tution can be framed and adopted not open to this charge. If the people or 
any other portion of them failed to participate, it was their own fault, and 
not the fault of those who were active. Democrats, Hards and Softs, Whigs, 
Hunkers and Liberals, Republicans, Pro-Slavery and Anti-Slavery men of 
all shades participated in the formation of the state government, and if it 
be a party movement at all, it certainly cannot be a movement of one party 
alone. In a republican government, the majority has no power to compel 
the minority to vote on any question ; neither has the minority a right to 
object to the action of the majority, because they did not choose to act with 
them. 
The President says : “ No principle of public law, no practice or pre¬ 
cedent under the constitution of the United States, no rule of reason, right 
or common sense, confers any such power as that now claimed by a mere 
party in the territory. In fact, what has been done is of a revolutionary 
character. It will become treasonable insurrection if it reach the length of 
organized resistance by force to the fundamental or any other federal law, 
and to the authority of the general government.” 
“ No principle of public law 55 ? What is the principle of squatter sover¬ 
eignty, then? “No precedent”? What did Michigan, California, and 
other new states do ? “ No rule of reason, right, or common sense ” ? Is 
popular sovereignty unreasonable, unjust and nonsensical? Suppose the 
party comprise an overwhelming majority of the people, what then ? 
James Christian, Esq., a very honorable and high-minded pro-slavery 
gentleman, writes to a friend in Kentucky as follows : “I believe I informed 
you before that I have been appointed clerk of this (Douglas) county, under 
the territorial Legislature; but we are in such a horrible state of confusion in 
regard to the laws that it don’t pay anything. The free-soiiers are in a 
large majority in the territory, and they are determined to pay no regard 
to the laws ; consequently they will not sue nor have any recording done, 
so my office is only in name. It is the same all over the territory.” 
According to the President, this “large majority ”' can have no rights, 
because they happen to think alike on a certain subject, or belong to the 
same “party.” It was formerly a principle of democracy that the ma¬ 
jority— especially “large majorities” — should rule; but times must 
have changed. 
If this “ large majority ” persist in setting in motion a state government, 
it will be “ treasonable.” It was not so, however, in Michigan, California, 
and other states. But the people of Kansas do not propose to reach the 
point of “organized resistance by force to the fundamental or any other 
federal law, and to the authority of the general goverment,” unless our 
81 
