In expressing this opinion it was far from my intention to interfere
with the decision of the people of Kansas, either for or against
slavery. From this I have always carefully abstained. Intrusted with the
duty of taking "care that the laws be faithfully executed," my only
desire was that the people of Kansas should furnish to Congress the
evidence required by the organic act, whether for or against slavery,
and in this manner smooth their passage into the Union. In emerging from
the condition of Territorial dependence into that of a sovereign State
it was their duty, in my opinion, to make known their will by the votes
of the majority on the direct question whether this important domestic
institution should or should not continue to exist. Indeed, this was
the only possible mode in which their will could be authentically
ascertained.

The election of delegates to a convention must necessarily take place in
separate districts. From this cause it may readily happen, as has often
been the case, that a majority of the people of a State or Territory are
on one side of a question, whilst a majority of the representatives from
the several districts into which it is divided may be upon the other
side. This arises from the fact that in some districts delegates may
be elected by small majorities, whilst in others those of different
sentiments may receive majorities sufficiently great not only to
overcome the votes given for the former, but to leave a large majority
of the whole people in direct opposition to a majority of the delegates.
Besides, our history proves that influences may be brought to bear on
the representative sufficiently powerful to induce him to disregard the
will of his constituents. The truth is that no other authentic and
satisfactory mode exists of ascertaining the will of a majority of the
people of any State or Territory on an important and exciting question
like that of slavery in Kansas except by leaving it to a direct vote.