Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1855-12-22

1lth. No news from Washington nothing
farther from Kansas. Dry as band-box-------
with no bonnet in it. ss..-.e--. =,
- fist 3 OUR Mo1ro. ~ es 51si.l5
The extract Of the speech from Henry Clay,
at our editorial head, wherein that gentleman
declares he never will, nor no earthly power
can ever make him vote "to spread slavery over
territory where il does not now exist" seems
to be the source Of considerable annoyance to
our neighbor of the Free Press Hecan'tim-
agine why we should select such an "extract as
motto from the speech of one who was always
known as slave holder in Kentucky" This
very fact was motive enough for US to show to
the world, that even stakeholder was oppos-
ed to the extension of slavery in territory now
free. Could we have more powerful motve7
We stated that Mr.. Clay and Webster ac-
quiesced in the Compromise Of 1920 for "a
years, whereupon our neighbor proceeds to en-
tighten us as to what the Compromise of 1920
was, for which he has our thanks, and quotes
from Charles Pinckney, a Southern member Of
the House from South Carolina to show that
the sc slave holding States considered" the pass
age Of the Compromise, ia great triumph"
There is nothing new in this. The South well
knew that they had no right TO ask for Missou-
ri to come into the Union as Slave State
They we'll knew that the ordinance of 81 con-
templated that no further slave territory should
be added to this Union. They we'll knew that
when the Constitution was formed, it was form
ed with an understanding that slavery should
be confined to the States where it then existed,
and that the States should have jurisdiction over
it, but that 1t should go no further. They well
knew that Washington, Jefferson, Madison,
Jay, and others so viewed this matter, but fear
ing that the new States coming into the Union,
would diminish their power in the General Gov
eminent, they insisted that Missouri should
come in with her slaves, and raised the cry Of
dissolution of the Union, which frightened the
North into the measure, and Missouri was ad-
mitted with slavery. No wonder that the South
considered it triumph, and the same game
played then, is now being played to get Kan
sas into the Union with her slaves. Clay and
Webster submitting to the outside pressure, and
doubtless sincerely believing that the Union
,could be dissolved unless the South carried their
point, gave in their adhesion to the Compro-
mise, in the hopes that it would be the '.finali-
ty" to the agitation Of the slavery question. In
doing this, they did IL for. all tinses-,cih a
uiesO that that Compromise should stand toreuer.
No matter what were Mr.. Clay's views in 1850
his act on the Missouri Compromise was
sealed, and there it remains. Did his PROPOSE
ton in 1850, to extend no line, come in conflict
with his previous course on the Missouri Com
promise! Did it alter one jot or one title of
that measures If not, then Mr.. Clay was no
Kansas-Nebraska man, as you have asserted
him to be, for to be Kansas-Nebraska man, it
was necessary for him to vote to break down
that which he had aided in building up. Would
he have done this had he lived 2 Never! and
this you know as well as we do. Hence, there
is just this difference between the father Of the
Missouri Compromise and the Modern Giant
-one aided in constructing it-ths other in
tearing it to pieces. The one sought to quiet
the agitation Of slavery--the other to renew it.
But our neighbor continues: -:
"Mr. Clay voted for the Compromise Of 1920
lit was Southern measure approved of by
the Times" "lHoI la-ar5 aad 6iaat a9s q
No sir the TINES never approved Of that
Compromise. 1t believes that the North made
a great mistake when it submitted to that Com
PROMISE. 1t believes that not one single inch
Of slave territory should ever have been added
to this Union; but after the Compromise had
been enacted by mutual understanding on
the part Of the North and the South, and acqui-
esced in for "a ycars--afer it had been the
means Of quietlng the country, and was deem
ed as sacred as the Constitution itself-afer
the South had realized their part Of the bar
gain. then we said let it stand-let the North
have her part of the loaf, but the traitor Doug
las, assisted by the Soutb, stepped in and snatch
ed it from her, and now he asks us to approve
of his measure. Suppose Mr.. Clay did vote
for the Compromise Of 1850, (which by the
way did not come in conflict with the Compro-
mise of ls20) and suppose that he also voted
for the Fugitive Slave Law, does that make
him Kansas Nebraska man? II so, we fail
to appreciate the argument of our cotemporary.
+ Our neighbor asserted /" that the very term
/" slavery, and its very existence through
Congressional action, was a burlesque on
the Declaration of Independence" BY this we
were led to believe that Congress had no pow
er to legislate on Slavery. In view of this fact,
we asked him how the Fugitive Slave Law
came into existence. if not !" through Congress
-ional actionT He lodges the question suf.
ficiently to presume upon our ignorance, and
quotes for our especial benefit, that part Of the
Constitution relative to persons held to service
or labor" admits that Congress did legislate
on the subject. and then says: s..-.@.~s,sT 4
"A similar law was passed at very early
day by Congress and excited no surprise" !;
Very well, sir; out Of your mouth We con.
denim you. According to your argument il
there was any action by Congress on the Flu.
gitiye Slave Law, then that action was a bur.
lesque on the Declaration Of Independence
On this point we agree. iss1fs ssss Iss 3 Il
Finally, our neighbor says he is not familiar
with = the sixth sphere Of oblivion" and knows