Quasqueton guardian. (Quasqueton, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1856-1858, 1858-07-22

however, able to cope with the powerful
and vigorous sinews of the army of free
laborers, and without help the former
must succumb, and the end aimed at in
the annunciation of the boosted principle
Of Popular Sovereignty. likely to be de-
feated
How, in view of this, did the Demo-
cratic party act? Did they still abide
by the principle, whatever its results =
We assert not. The principle, we said,
was professedly adopted by that party at
the passage of the Kansas Nebraska act,
and the Cincinnati platform merely re-
affirmed it. The Cipaian will not deny
that the administration of FRANKLIN
PIERCE entirely repudiated it in their
treatment of the Kansas question, by
forcing upon the people of that territory
legislature and other officers whom
they never elected, and who were ex-
tremely obnoxious to lhem. He removed,
as his successor removed, governor after
governor, and officer after officer, as soon
as he suspected them of siding with the
free state majority in the territory, and
used all the power lie possessed to force
the institutions and laws of Missouri up
on the people of Kansas. All this time
he received the united encouragement
and support of the Democratic party and
press, and an endorsement at Cincinnati
from the representatives of the party
A support and an endorsement for acts
yiolative of, and utterly regulating,
practically, this very principle.
Well, Mr. BUCHANAN was nominated
and elected, and then we were to have the
essence of Popular Sovereignty certain.
Popular Sovereignty was sure TO make
Kansas free, Mr. BUCHANAN was the en-
bodiment of Popular Sovereignty, there
foe it was " Hurrah for BUCHANAN and
Free Kansas. But, just as soon as he
was installed in position to give force to
this gigantically extolled principle of the
party, there steps in very elaborate and
very convenient, though entirely unlaw-
full (if we might SO term il) opinion of
the Supreme Court, which entirely de-
molishes this fiimsy fabric of Popular
Sovereignty, by denying the right of the
people of territory to regulate Slavery,
one of their domestic institutions. To
this decision Mr.. BUCHANAN and the
party gave hearty assent, though still
bowling the rallying Cry of Popular Sow
ereignty, which by this time had come to
be defined as principle applicable only
to the people of an inchoate state.
Well, was the Democracy true to even
this limited application Of the principle ?
took steps to form State Constitution.
How was this principle TO be applied, un-
less, when forming constitution, the
people of that inchoate state were allowed
TO pass upon that Observation-Disclosures to
accept or reject the institutions permit
ted by it? Certainly III no other way
could the application be made. Did the
Democratic party contend for this The
Ciptlian will find hard time making the
people believe it. The naoaus operondi
Of the submission of the Lecompton con
stitution is well known The method was
one concocted by the Administration it,
self, and for contending against it and
insisting upon the popular rights which
this Squatter Sovereignty professed to
/ give, Gov WALKER was sacrificed -
Did the party protest against this repu-
diation of their fayorite dogma \ por-
ton at the North did, but the large mass
certainly did not. WALKER has been a
dead cock in the pit ever since.
We now come to the evidence of the
party's consistent support of this princi
pie, AS given by the Cipiiian, namely,
the action Of Democrats in the last Con-
gress. Let us see about what quantity
of devotion TO principle there was there
in. The Lecompton constitution was
sent to Congress with special message
from the President. In that message he
| limited the intent Of the organic act Of
the territory, in the declaration made
respecting the right Of the people to reg
ulate their domestic institutions in their
own way, strictly to the subject of slav-
cry, and contended that as that question
had been submitted, the provisions OF
the Kansas Nebraska bill-thc essence of
Popular Sovereiguty-had been COM
piled with. With this view Mr.. DouG-
LAS took issue, and was supported by
how many democrats in the Senate ?
Why the enormous number Of TWO. Here
was this broad, expansive principle re-
stricted to the narrow limits Of one do
| nestle institution which the Surname