To have admitted the State without modification of the ordinance, would have been to grant five times as much of the public land as had ever been given to a State at the period of admission.

There was nothing to justify such a discrimination, and otherwise the State could not be admitted without referring the question or violating the principle of State sovereignty.

As a condition precedent, the general government may require the recognition of its right to control the primary disposal of the land, but can have no right to impose a condition with the mandate that it shall be subsequently fulfiled and no power to enforce the mandate if the State admitted should refuse to comply.  Not for all the land in Kansas, not for all the land between the Missouri and the Pacific ocean, not for all the land of the continent of North America, would I agree that the federal government should have the power to coerce a State.

The necessity for having all conditions agreed upon before the admission of a State was demonstrated by Mr. Soule, in 1850, in the discussion of the bill for the admission of California.  Mr. Webster replied to him but did not answer his argument, and the course of events seems likely to verify all that Senator Soule foretold.

Of the three methods which were supposable, I think Congress adopted the best; it was the only one which was attainable and secured all which was of value to the South.  It was the admission by Congress of a State with a pro-slavery Constitution; it was the triumph of the principle that forbade Congress to interfere either as to the matter of the Constitution or the manner in which it should be formed and adopted.

The refusal of the inhabitants to accept the reduced endowment offered to them, and their decision to remain in a territorial condition, was, in my opinion, wise on their part and fortunate on ours.  The late Governor, Denver, has forcibly pointed out to them their want of means to support a State government, and the propriety of giving their first attention to the establishment of order and the development of their internal resources.  There were many reasons to doubt the fitness of the inhabitants of Kansas to be admitted as a State.

The condition of the country and the previous legislation of Congress made the case exceptional, and, in my judgment, justified the course adopted.  I have, therefore, no apology or regret to offer in the case.

The Northern opponents of the measure have, among other denunciatory epithets, applied to it those of “bribery” and “coercion.”  “Bribery” to give less by twenty millions of acres of land than was claimed, and “coercion” to leave them to the option of receiving the usual endowment, or waiting until they had an amount of population which would give some assurance of their ability to maintain a State government.  Though such is the requirement of the law, and designed to secure exemption