rty, when towards the
end of 1857 the Southern leaders attempted a legislative outrage, the
great champion of the Northern protest was not a Republican, but
Douglas himself.

A Convention had been elected in Kansas to frame a State Constitution.
It represented only a fraction of the people, since, for some reason
good or bad, the opponents of slavery did not vote in the election.
But it was understood that whatever Constitution was framed would be
submitted to the popular vote. The Convention framed a Constitution
legalising slavery, and its proposals came before Congress backed by
the influence of Buchanan. Under them the people of Kansas were to
vote whether they would have this Constitution as it stood, or have it
with the legalisation of slavery restricted to the slaves who had then
been brought into the territory. No opportunity was to be given them
of rejecting the Constitution altogether, though Governor Walker,
himself in favor of slavery, assured the President that they wished to
do so. Ultimately, by way of concession to vehement resistance, the
majority in Congress passed an Act under which the people in Kansas
were to vote simply for or against the slavery Constitution as it
stood, only--if they voted for it, they as a State were to be rewarded
with a large grant of public lands belonging to the Union in their
territory. Eventually the Kansas people, unmoved by this bribe,
rejected the Constitution by a majority of more than 11,000 to 1,800.
Now, the Southern leaders, three years before, had eagerly joined with
Douglas to claim a right of free choice for the Kansas people. The
shamelessness of this attempt to trick them out of it is more
significant even than the tale of Preston Brooks. There was no hot
blood there; the affair was quietly plotted by respected leaders of the
South. They were men in many ways of character and honour, understood
by weak men like Buchanan to represent the best traditions of American
public life. But, as they showed also in other instances that cannot
be related here, slavery had become for them a sacred cause which
hallowed almost any means. It is essential to remember this in trying
to understand the then political situation.

Douglas here behaved very honourably. He, with his cause of popular
sovereignty, could not have afforded to identify himself with the fraud
on Kansas, but he was a good enough trickster to have made his protest
safely if he had cared to do so