The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-09-22
WASHINGTON, D. C.
SENATOR CLAY ON SENATOR DOUG.
LAS

lowing extract from his speech, as reported in
the Huntsville Democrat:
By the so-ealled Compromise measures of
1859, through the unconstitutional and revo-
lntionary act of military governor. and by the
votes of unnaturalized foreigners. Cinnamon,
free negroes, and even slaves, who. am as
sured by men Of unimpeachable integrity. went
TO the polls and voted by their sides, the whole
OF California yielded to Abolition clamors, and
was lost to the South-40,000 and odd square
miles were, IN like manner exscinded from the
slave State of Texas, and added to New Mex
leo, subject TO be lost by the customary cxpe-
dients for robbing the South of her share and
and deyonng Il all to Free Soil-and the slave
trade was abolished in the District Of Column
bia. Thus was the South again defrauded Of
her right, and this is the fourth stride Of Adolf
ton. In return for this surrender of her equal
rights in the common Territories Of the Union,
the South got the act for the rendition Of fugi-
Iive slaves Ito which she was expressly entitled
by the Constitution) and non-interyention. Not
wthstanding this constitutional provision, and
the acts passed pursuant thereto, the Neto York
Times estimates the loss to the South Of thir-
ty-fve million dollars worth Of fugitive slaves
down to the year 1856, showing how faithfully
the North has fulfilled the stipulations of these
Under the aOR-iHterreRtiOH principle of
the Compromise measures, the powers confer
red on the Territorial Legislatures of Utah and
New Mexico extended TO all riqhtjm sub
lects Of legislation consistent with the Consti-
tuition; and when they formed State Constitu-
tons, and applied for admission into the Unicn,
they were to be admitted with or without Sla-
very, as their Constitutions might prescribe
The doctrine Of non-intervention, at that time
extended no further. These measures were
called a finality on the Slavery question, and
harbingers Of a glorious millennium of peace
and harmony to our distracted country Did
they prove so? Let subsequent events answer.
Although the Compromise was final ad-
justmept of the Slavery question, yet when the
same principle was sought to be embraced in
the Kansas-Nebraska bill in 1854, it was re-
sisted by the entire Wing and Abolition parties,
and large minority of the Democracy of the
North. 1t proved a death-blow to the Wing
party. This was called another act of peace.
Does the controversy now shaking this Confed-
eracy to its foundations, prove it to be an act
of peace? Has the position of It's author, Mr.
Douglas, taken three years after its adoption,
proven it to be such? is it in harmony with
your views, or reconcilable with your rights
Can you adopt IT. and maintain your equality
as freemen in the Union? Never, never. He
ASAAH "AiAAC NOuSsulllS lnC COITtcLutSS OF the
bred Scott decision, denying the power of Con
gress or of a Territorial Legislature TO exclude
Slavery from q Territory, that the Territorial
Legislature may rigAtfulLy by non-action or
untriendly legislation exclude Slavery there
from-in other words, that Territorial Legis-
lature may achieve indirectly what it cannot
and dare not do directly.
"This doctrine carries its condemnation on
Its own face. 1t is as bad in morals as in poll
tics. 1t is dishonest. 1t is akin to that Spartan
morality which punished robbery as a crime,
but applauded theft, when successfully conceal
ed, as a virtue.
He tells you that the South, through her
Representatives, by their support of the Ne
braska- Kansas bill, pledged themselves that
Congress should never intervene for the pro-
lection of Slavery in the Territories. / repel
the charge as an insult. / regard it as a SLAM
der OF myself and every Southern St-tes Rights
Democrat Or Wing who supported that meas
ure. 1t lulputes to US either the imbecility Of
idiocy or the baseness Of knavcry-that we did
not understand your rights, or cOrruptly surren-
dered them. We swear to support the Consti-
tuition. From that Constitution, as we interpret
ed 1t, neither Congress nor a Territorial Leg
lslature can derive power 10 prohibit abolish.
impair, or qualify the right of citizen to carry
slaves or any other legal property into any Ter
define property, except, perhaps, monev-or
discharge any article from being property-or
take private property for public use without
Just compensation. On the contrary, all powers
delegated TO It, or prohibited, were designed for
the protection OF private property OF every kind
and especially slave property.
Senator G. here urged, at length. the un-
cOnstltutionality Of Douglass doctrine. He
then proceeded to show that the Southern sup.
porters of the bill never intended ~ abdicaie
the power Of Congressional protection 10 Slave
AZ IN the Territories, arguing that it was dis
proved by the history OF non-inttrvontion-bv
the declarations and interpretations Of the bill
by Southern Senators pending its discussion
by the express terms of the act itselfby the sub
sequent course and speeches Of Douglas him
selt-by the subsequent action Of the Demo.
cratic party IN COugresS-and bv the Ciucin-
matt platform, as interpreted by Mr.. Buchanan
and all the Southern Democracy.
But suppose that the Douglas construction
Of the Nebraska Kansas act is right; then, so
far as 1t abdicated the power of Congress to
protect Slavery against unconstitutional Terri
forial legislation, and bound Congress not to
intervene 10 save slave property from such con-
fscation, # is null and void, because unconsti-
tutOnal Southern Senators and Representa-
tives had no power 10 surrender Southern
rights guaranteed by the Constitution, or bind
you TO their unconstitutional acts. Ii they did
so, ignOrantly or wilfUlly, they are unworthy of
your confidence, and you should withdraw the
trust so unfortunately con6ded to them. Ifthev
understood that they were conceding what IS
claimed by Douglas, they betrayed you, and dis
honored themselves, BY conserving that your
property should not enjoy like protection with
Northern property, both On land aud sea. This
concession, demanded of you by Douglas. is an
insult. If you yield to this demand. ii will
prove an irreparable injury. You cannot do IT.
without sinking into deserved inieroritv and
degradation. You will not DO il. if the spirit
which animated your sires still lives in their
sons
The Federal flag, which floats over North.
ern ships in every sea, protects Northern prop
erty. To maintain that protection, the United
States fought the war Of l8l2-scourged the
Mediterranean pirates, and the Barbarv States
for protecting them-drove the pirates from
their hiding places in our Southern seas-but
lately bombarded and demolished Greytown-
demanded and extorted of Austrian despotsm
the surrender of Martin Koszta, an unnatural
lied foreigner, who had taken only the initia-
tory steps towards naturalization yea. even
the free negroes Of Liberia, sent there from the
United States by the misguided philanthropy
of eolonizationists, beneath that Federal hag
have shelter and security for their persons and
property against the savage negroes of Africa.
at the expense of Federal treasure, three-fourths
of which are collected from the South. Shall
we, freemen of the South, citizens of the United
States, abandon our constitutional right to pro.
lection, which is accorded to Northern men. to
foreigners, and even to free negroes on a foreign
shore? Never, never, with my consent.
Douglas demands this, as condition pre-
cedent TO his cooperation with you in that party
LII h -ctrIos The A-rtin,.nI n -.