The Buchanan County guardian. (Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1858-1864, 1858-09-02

never saw the inside of free school, and
the assertions of Democrat they treat al
ways as law and gospel. But to say to
an Old Line Whig-a man who reads and
thinks-that the " Garrisons, the Wen
dell Philipses, the Abby Kellys, and the
blasphemous Rutland Conventionists, ,,
are the leaders of the Republican party
that that party" makes open and ag-
gressive war upon the people and local
institutions of fifteen sovereign States, .
or that Henry Clay stood opposed to
the principles which that party now ad-
vocate-is to tell him to write you down
bigger ass than forty Dogberrys could
make. Henry Clay, in 1850. occupied
exactly the same position that the Repub-
lican party now occupies, and no Old
Line Wing, true to the precepts of the
patriot sage, will be found anywhere else
than in the Republican ranks. Henry
Clay contended that Slavery possesses no
rights under the Constituencies does
the Republican party. Henry Clay as
serted that Congress has the right of leg
islation over the territories (as indeed did
every other Statesman from Jefferson
down-Calhoun only excepted land so
does the Republican party. Henry Clay
regarded Slavery as an entirely sectional
institution, creature entirely of local
law, receiving no protection from the
Constitutional does the Republican
party. No man in the Republican ranks
ever asserted these doctrines more clear
ly or more forcibly than did Henry Clay,
and that, too, as late as 1850. No man
in the Republican ranks ever secuted,
with more Indignation, than did Henry
Clay, the idea that under the constitution
Slavery could 60 unchecked into our ter
ritories. To prove this we need but to
refer to his great speech on the Compro-
mise Measures of 1850, in which be
says:
II am aware that there are gentlemen
who maintain that in virtue of the Con-
stitution the right to carry slaves south
of that line, the Missouri Compromise
line already exists, and that, of course,
those who maintain that opinion, want no
other security for the transportation Of
their slaves north of that line, than the
Constitution. If l had not heard that
opinion avowed, l should have regarded
it as one Of the most extraordinary as
SYMPTOMS and tie most indefemss5le posi-
ton ever taken by man. The Constitution
neither created, nor does it continue
Slavery"
And further:
" But yOu cannot put your finger upon
any part Of the constitution ,chich conveys
the right or the poaOer to carry SLAVES from
one Of the States of the Union to any Ter
ritory Of the United States. Nor, sir,
can | admit for single moment, that
there is any separate or distinct right
upon the part of States or individual
members of the States, or of any portion
of the people of the United States, to car
ry slaves into Territories, under the idea
that those Territories are held in common
between the several States.''
And again, upon another occasion, he
said
Why, these United States consists Of
thirty States. In fifteen of them there is
slavery, and in fifteen of them slavery
does not exist. Well, how can it be ar
gued that the fifteen slave States, by the
operation of the Constitution of the Unit
ed States, carry into the coded Territory
their institution Of slavery, any more than
it can be argued, on the other side, that,
by the operation of the same Constitution,
the fifteen free States carry into the coded
Territory the principle of Freedom ?"
Instead of being with the Democracy
in their endorsement of bred Scottish,
his views are in direct antagonism with
those of fancy, as the following extract
from the same speech will show:
If slaves are voluntarily carried into
such a jurisdiction (where slavery does
not exist, their chains instantly drop of,
and they become free, emancipated, lib
Grated from their bondage.
4 You can
not put your finger on the part of the
Constitution which conveys the right or
power to carry slaves from any of the
States of the Union to any Territory of
the United States
The Democratic idolized doctrine of
Squatter Sovereignty he thus directly
touches and effectually explodes in his
speech Of February 5th 1850. Speaking
of the early settlements of Ohio, he
says:
my friend now before me (Mr. Cor
win } will correct me if am wrong. 1t
was small settlement made by some
two or three hundred persons from New
England. Cincinnati was the next, and
was settled by hand full Of persons
from New Jersey, perhaps, or some Of the
other States. Had these few settlers the