The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1854-08-02

act has opened up anew the whole slave
ry controversy with increased bitterness,
threatening the dissolution of the party
which so triumphantly placed him in the
Executive Chair. I believe a person
has always been regarded as being strict
ly within the pale of the party who was
willing to, and did conform to the plat.
forms laid down by his party in Nation
al, State and County Conventions and
that these platforms have been regarded
as binding on the party, until changed
Improperly organized Conventions. Has
any Democratic National Convention
changed the Platform of 1852? Has
any Convention of our State, changed
the resolutions of 1s4s? Has any Con
%vention of our own County endorsed the
Nebraska-K Kansas bill, or favored the
agitation caused by the introduction of
the slavery question in Congress? 1
answer emphatically-NOl Nothing of
the kind has been done. Have the mem
bers of Congress, as such, the power
delegated to them to change or make
platforms for the party? I think not.
And if the President, through selfish and
interested motives, repudiates all the
pledges he has given to the people, and
changes his political views as often as
babys cry, are the party bound to follow
him in order to keep caste? If a per-
son can't be in good standing in his par
ty without doing violence to his moral
feelings, or without changing about as
the weathercock, to suit the corrupt views
of party leaders, Tor those who assume
to be SUCH, he is no longer a free Amer
lean citizen, and the sooner he throws
off the francis of party the better.
But let us see whether the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise is in truth Dem
ocratic measure, and whether or not it
originated with the Democratic party.
If can show that it had its origin in the
brain of a Southern Wig, and was in
troduced by him, and that it wal sup
ported by the entire South, Wings as
well as Democrats, with a few honora-
BILE exceptions,) and that it could not
have become a law without the votes of
Southern Wings, I apprehend some of
our sticklers for Democracy, Il mean in
name only who are SO p~rofuse in denoun-
cling opposition to the Nebraska bill as
anti-democratic, will feel that the ground
they occupy is not SO very tenable after
all, and that they had as well, perhaps,
be looking about for the old Democratic
landmarks and platforms, and as speed
lily as possible be crawling upon them,
lest they and not we be called anti-dem-
ocratics agitators, and stand in fear of
being read out of the party. And now
for the proof that it is a Wing and not a
Democratic measure.
On the 28th of June last, Mr.. DIXON,
a Senator from Kentucky, made a speech
in the U. States Senate on the Fugitive
Slave Law, in which he says: "I, when
" the distinguished Senator from Illinois,
F." (Mr. DoUGLAs,) reported his bill from
" the committee on Territories to organ
" ize the Territory of Nebraska, offered
" an amendment to repeal the Missouri
=" restriction, and which amendment, with
/" some slight alterations, not affecting
" the substance, was incorporated into
" the bill and has become the law of the
I" land =" MI. Dixon is a Southern
Wing of the first water, and we see by
his W declaration, which stands I'M
contradicted, that he is the author of
that part Of the Nebraska bill which re-
peals the Missouri Compromise, and the
only part of the bill which is very objec-
tionable. I do not introduce the re-
of Mr.. Dixon for the purpose of
identifying the Wing party North with
this UBIQUITOUS measure. To their honor
be it said, that every Northern Wing
voted against it. Introduce it to show
some of these =" loud" Democrats, who
can always see a Niger in the wood
pile j" whether there is one there or not,
that the glass in their windows is about
as thin as in our own and that while
we are on the Platforms of our party,
they are hugging to their bosoms a meas
ure introduced by a Southern Wing.
60NTnD 0NETOH