Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1856-07-11

BUCHANAN ON sQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY.
ANQTuER IMplu1. IanLI.AIA,:n


BUCHANAN ON sQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT DOCUMENT.
IL Is remarkable fact that while the Opposition
press OF Virginia accuses Mr. Buchanan of trnching
the doctrine Of Squster Sovereignty, another Knew
Nothing paper in Alabama arraigns him for profess
lug directly the contrary principle The Mobile DID,
0crser reproduces the following lotter, for the pur
p'se Of proving tina, the Democratic candidate man
tnins that the sovereignty tho territories resides
in the Federal Government:
WASHINGTON, August 81, 1873.
Dear Sir l have just received yours of the l2lh
instant, in which you submit 10 the following par
agraph, and AJAX whether il contains accurate YER
sion Of the conversation between US, concerning my
Berks county letter, Oh the occasion which you Ie
| fer:
"Happenng to meet Mr. Buchanan at the Pre.-
dents leyoe, on Friday evening, called his attention
to this letter, aud asked him if he intended to be am
derstood claiming that the population of Territory
| III an unorganzed capacity had the right TO control
the question of slavery in such Territory He declared
that no such idea had ever been maintained by him
that the construction put upon his language by Mr.
Yancy was a perverslon Of it's plain and obvious
.neauing thar, in his opinion, the inhabitants of Ter
rory such, had no political rights, [ahough they
possessed all the private rights Of fAmercan citizens
that they had no power whatever over The subject r
slavery and they could neither interdict rs,ab
ish it, except when assembled in Convention TO form
| State constitution. He further authorized and re-
quested me to make any public use of these drciarG
tons that | might think proper, to correct any i'm
preston which Mr.. Ianccy's construction "f his Ian
| guage i'll the Berks letter might have mado.'
With the addition which have inserted between
brackets, this statement is substantially and almost
| literally correct according TO my recollection.
Ia my letter to Berks county Of 18th August, lSi7
| | had said "under the Missouri compromise slavery
was forever prohibited North Of the parallel Of 50 de-
grees 80 minutes and South of this parallel the Gues
| ,l..tt, .l h,yf !, Wl,u
peoplel Undoubtedly the ceupie of the Territory
sembled in C2nyeation to form State Constitution,
and ask admission into the Union: and not the trs;
adventnrers or FIRST co'ners, who might h"ppen 10
arrive III the Territory assembled IN public crilAg
| If doubt ON this subject could pusslGiY exist it is
removed by the neyt succeeding sentence OF NY let
| ter prooesdod to state: "Congress on The admits
sion of Te3as, adopted the same rule etc. And
what was this ruei The Joint Resolution for an
ne1ng Texas to tho United States" approved March
ls 1915, answers the question in the follow ins words
"Aud such Stacs as may be formed out OF that por.
siou of said Territory lying South OF Sc degrees 80
minutes, north latitude, commonly known as the Mis-
| souri, Compromise line shall be- admitted iuto the
Union, with without slavery, the pope Of c0ct,
State asking admission may desnc.' Such wsS ;he
description Of the people to whom re!aEred 10 my
| Berks county letter. 80 -
| Any other construction OF tue letter would render
it essentially inconsiOent with itself Having urged
the adoption Of the Missouri Compromise, the inier.
snce is Irresistible that Congress- in ny opinion, pos
/
| ry in the Territories. What au ahsurdty, would il
then he, ii, whilst asserting this SOVEREIGN
| POWER IN CONGRESS-, wh,ch po~er from us na-
turc must be EXCLUSIVE, should in the very
same breath also claim this identical power "for the
ccityy7
! in conclusion, desire to reiterate AID reaitIn
every sentiment contained i. n'y HerES county let
| ter. [ clin. ~ .e Missouri Compromise with great
or tenacity than ever aud yet firmly believe that It
! will be adopted by Congress.
| Yours, very respectfully.
JANIS BUCHANAN.
| 7. SAspFoRp, Esq.
! Tho il formal and public exposition oi opinion,
and presents the deliberate conviction OF Mr. Buc
hauan ON the vexed question of the relations Of slave
ry in the territories. In clsning for Congress e1c!u
sive control over the territories, Mr.. Buchanan EN-
phatcaly repudates the idea OF Squater Sovereign
ty But in claiming for Congress 'Eis exclusive sovc'
reiguty, he does not imply thst the Federal Legsa
ure ny proni5it abolish snvery III the territories
1t does not follow that because Congress may iegls
late for the protection Of slavery III the territories,
tha il may legsGte for It's abolition The distinction
is obvious aud ncontestible Indeed the very fact
that power ia reserved the Fede;al Legislature to
protect property within the territories, implies that
Congress has no power TO destroy it. Tho
sovereignty of the Ftdoral Government over
the common territory is absolute just a' II ID ab'
soute n rsspeo, of any subject within ts ieS'-
mate jurrdction- Ia absolute for right and justice
bat not for wrong and oppression. Its sovereignty s
absolute for the protection OF the cgua. and common
rights of the Staes, bu. paweress for the dsp9rage.
ment of these equal and cc!nihon rights. Congress
may not abo!ish ssvery in the territories heoause the
Federal government has no power to destroy the Sc.
curty Of property. Congress may not exclude slave.
ry from the territories because that would be an act
Of partial aud oppressive legislation aud ii. dcrosa
tioA of the equal rights and dignity OF the Southern
States. The EQUALITY OF THE STATES ID the lunda.
mental idea Of our government, and is the an;mating
principle Of the Constitution. To ignore this idea
and to attack this principle, s to assal tho CcnstiG
ton in it's very essence. Ohe. measures may violate
the letter oths Constitution but an attempt on the part
of Congress to exclude slavery from the territories
would BIZ all invasion and destruction of the siri; OF
the Constitution which it could no; survive for mo-
ment.
With his accurate and profound study Of the Fade
raj Constitution, Mr.. Buchanan coul not iul To dis
cover the true theory Of territorial so"ereignty-if
such sefcontradctory phrnse be admissible for the
purpose of illustration. That he means TO affirm The
principle which have just exp"unded, is obvious
from the teuo. ofhe above letter. Bat his position is
more explicitly defined by his acts. Thus, he las sI-
ways denied the consti,utionality Of the WImo Pro
vyo which proves that he does not carry tc theory
of Federal Sovereignty the territories 20 the ex-
tent Of maintaining that Congress u:ny prohibit or
abolish, as we'll a. prutec: sad supper: slavery in the
territories. He is too cautious and conservative
statesman to PROFOUND any such fatal and prepo'trr-
GUS prnc,ae lIe might rs well mainian that Con-
gress has power to take away the lives aL property
of the people of territory, because it has the pow
er to egislas for the protection Of their lives and
their property.
To all this some one will reply: that Mr. Buchanan
was for extending the Missouri Compromise TO the
Pacific, and the Missouri Compromise is the Wimot
Proyiso in another form and with another uame.-
Very true; but MIR. Buchanan accepted the Missouri
Compromise as an accomplished fact and fnality'
without inquirug into is origin or principle, just as
he and we accept the Ordinance Of 81. which is also
! the same in substance with the Wilmol Proviso,
without mootng the question Of it's original justice
and propriety.
Thus it is manifest, from his own deliberate words
and recorded acts, that Mr. Buchanan occupies pre-
osely the same position respects slavery in the ter
ri.oriss, which was held by Mr.. Calhoun aud the
statesmen Of the South.
WINGS APPLAUDING BUCHANAN.