The weekly Ottumwa courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1857-1872, 1860-03-08
For the Courier.
SIS the Democratic Party Pro-

DciitoSialiC ouioil, WulCn ne pTOCeSuS tC
answer, to his own mind no doubt, very sat.
isfactorily. Although the falsity of his logic
has been clearly demonstrated by one of your
correspondents, l propose to notice few
facts, which, to my mind, prove that this
sometime editor has been guilty of gross mis-
representation, whether ignorantly or cil
fully, | leave others to say. do so, not be-
cause have any desire for newspaper motto
riety, nor that believe myself capable o
eXcellng in that direction, but because be
lieve this to be the real question at issue be
tween the parties. And further, | believe
that the editor aforesaid feels the imperativ,
necessity Of keeping the rank and file of his
party in 'blissful ignorance" on this aues
ton. Hence, his herculean effort to disprovt
a fact of history--a fact written by the
blood of innocent men and women on the
plains Of Mexico, Kansas, and clsewhcre-s
tact proven by every Democratic speech
made in the halls of Congress since 1859
tact PROMULGATED by the Supreme Court o.
the United States-a fact taught by James
Buchanan in his messages to both Houses OF
Congress, and tried to be enforced in all on,
Federal Territories, by Federal bayonets, in
the hands of mcrcenmy soldiers sworn to dc
the bidding of the slave power; anil, finally
a tact not denied anywhere in this republic
except in the free States, by Democratic
leaders who have too much sense not tc
know it would be their political death, tc
openly Acknowledged A Democratic Pres.
ident says that slavery exists at this mo-
ment in Kansas by virtue of the Constitu.
ton Of the United States;" that, therefore
kansas is as much a slave State as Georgia
or South Carolina" This is the Democratic
doctrine on this question, and our erudite
editor endorses it, and the Democratic party
endorse it. That this is the very essence OF
pro-siaveryism, and will result in extending
slavery into all our Territories as well as free
States, no rational man can deny. Perhaps
[ can Illustrate the proposition more clearly
by quoting the language of another, than by
using my own. He says, in reference to
this subject, ''if the proposition he true, that
the Constitution establishes slavery in the
Territories beyond the power of the people
legally to control it, another result, no less
startling, and from which there is no esea 20,
must inevitably follow. The Constitution is
uniform everywhere within. the dominions
of the United States'-is the same i'm Penn
sylvania as in kansas--and if it be true. AS
stated by the President in a special message
to Congress, that slavery exists in Kansas
by virtue Of the Constitution of the United
States and that Kansas is therefore at this
moment as rNich a slave State as Georgia or
South, Carolina why does it not exist in
Pennsylvania by virtue of the same Consti-
tuition? lit be said that Pennsylvania is a
sovereign State, and therefore has right to
regulate the slavery question within her own
limits to suit herself it must be borne in
mind that the sovereignty OF Pennsylvania,
like that of every other State, is limited by
the Constitution, which provides that
This Constitution, and all laws of the United
States which shall be. made in pursuance
thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall
be made, under the authority of the United
States, shah be the supreme law of the land
and the jud res in every State shall he bound
thereby, anything in the Constitution OF
laws of any State to the contrary notwith.
standing Hence, the State. Of Penns, Iva.
MIA, with Constitution and laws, and domes.
tic institutions, and international policy, is
subordinate to the Constitution of the United
States, in the same manner, and to the sans
extent as the Territory of Kansas.
"Ihe question: recurs then, if the Consti-
tuition does establish slavery in Kansas OF
any other Territory, how can the conclusion
be resisted that slavery is established in like
manner and by the same authority, in all
the States Of lie Union? And if it be the
imperative duty of Congress to provide by
law for the protection of slave property in
the territories upon the ground that slavery
exists in Kansas (and consequently in every
other territ n'y,) by virtue of the Con,titu
ton of the United States why is it not also
the duty Of Congress, for the same reason,
to provide similar protection to slave proper
ty in all the States of the Union, when the
Legislatures fail to furnish such protection ~
Now, Mr.. Editor of the "Democrat," is not
the above fair representation of the opinions
together with their legitimate results, advo.
Gated by the shtm-Delnocratic party in pow.
er, aided by whatever ability you may pos
sess? And yet you say the Democratic
party is not pro-slavery party! Do you
not know that the Democratic party feu
years ago, through their conventions, pro
mulgated principles similar to the following
resolutions, adopted on the Sth day of Janu
AIRY, A. d. l549, by the Democratic Stat,
Convention of Indiana, torwit;
''Resoioed, That the institution of SLAYER,
ought not to be introduced into any Terrific
ry where it does not now exist
hes'toe", mat l1aSllflcn as New Mexico
and California are in fact and in law FIRE,
Territories, il is the duty of Congress to pre-
vent the introduction of slavery within thei
! limits"
In 1919, the Legislature of New Hamp
shire, being overwhelmingly Democratic
passed the following resolutions:
"Resolod BY the Senate and House O
| Representatives in General Convention con