Talk:Lecompton Constitution

Classification

I have classified this article as a start due to its level of organisation and detail. Capitalistroadster 07:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The Problem with Lecompton

On the surface, it seems reasonable that the Lecompton Constitution referendum had a vote for the "Constitution with Slavery" vs. the "Constitution with No Slavery". But this is misleading. The "Constitution with No Slavery" choice would not have made Kansas a free state; it made provision that slaves at that time in Kansas could not be messed with; their owners could keep them, and as the right of property could not be forced to release them or leave. The only thing the "Constitution with No Slavery" would've ostensibly stopped was the future importation of slaves into Kansas. Many deemed this, apart from the complete banning of slavery in Kansas, as unenforceable. This helps explain why anti slavery forces boycotted the referendum.

The later referendum that was taken added to the above choices the option to vote against the Constitution. Pro-slavery forces boycotted this election. But the Lecompton Constitution was not finally rejected until the House of Representatives voted down the admission of Kansas as a state under the Lecompton Constitution by a close margin, featuring Stephen Douglas and many Northern Democrats siding with the free soil Republicans. I briefly added these points to the article.John ISEM 20:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert J. Walker discussion inadequate, misleading

The article implies that Governor Walker was inherently antislavery--he was in fact, as his Wikipedia biography states, "a passionate defender of slavery, both for economic benefits, and because he believed Negroes would fall into turpitude or insanity without firm masters." The article also suggests that Walker approved of the Lecompton Constitution, when in fact he resigned in opposition to it. This completely inverts the significance of Walker's contribution, and the meaning of the Constitution itself. Cwhig1848 (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)cwhig1848

References

Quick Note

This article is not useful, I need information about it, and instead of telling me what purpose it was for, it ended up telling me who wrote it, and if it did, then well it needs to be written in language anyone can understand 97.77.96.128 (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lecompton Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616150553/http://www.kshs.org/places/constitution/index.htm to http://www.kshs.org/places/constitution/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)