Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1856-05-20
The Kansas bill and the StauniOJ
Convention.

hope that We Win withdraw our opposition TO
the resolution Of the Stanton Convention in
which that CONGO ssioa i made
I he views We have recently expressed were
not hastily adopted, nor then for the first time
announced When the Kansas bill was under
discussion IN the Senate prior 10 its enactment
as law, we declared our belief that, 40 far from
sanc,icning squatter sovereignty. il disallowed
and excluded that dangerous principle, in the
Judgment Of all men who did not believe squaticr
sovereignty to he Pernitted by The constitution.
We were perfectly aware then that the leading
Democrats OF the North. holding that squa,ter
*avsreigu,y was not incompatible with the CON
stituton. claimed that il was established by that
bill-but ourselves believing it not to be computi-
BILE with the constitution, denied that il
.ceived any countepance from u law the details,
enforcement and operation OF which were ex-
pressly made subject to the federal consiitu-
ton"
On this point the whole argument turns. Is
squaiter sovereignty in accordance with or Sub.
iect to the federal constitution" We affirm that
it is not TO admit the contrary is 10 grant
that Congress in establishing Territorial Leg
islature has power to confer upon it authority to
determine the question Of slavery in Territory
If Congress can confer such authority, il pos
sesses it as an attribute of it's own and could, If
it chose, exercise il directly, without the inter
vention of Territorial Legislature. Admitting
this would be compelled to admit TINT tie
Wilmot prosiso would he constitutional. Aud
when the South makes this conoet sion she will
have surrendered tho whole doctrine of state
sovereignty over local and domestic questions
the last manimen, Of protection to slave property
and the rights of the Southern States.
We ask nothing, as citizens Of the South, that
il not accorded US by the constitution. We dep.
reoate nothing, on the part Of the North, that is
permitted by the constitution. W ask no higher.
law favors. We are prepared TO dispense with
all charitable indul genees, sprlngng from tho
fraternal relations Of oui people, We demand
only what the constitution guarantees to us. If
thai instrument authorizes the enactment of the
Wilmot Proyiso. and the North choose tn enuci
it, they have the right TO do so, and we are bound
20 submit. II il permits the establishment uf
squatter sovereignty, and the North choose TO
avail themselves of that permission, we cannot
resist. For this reason and with these opinions,
VIZ fii 'oh'b VIZ w f'"A'o' "baibfA lu' Ifhplu-
ton of the stanton Convention, that by cnnoc.
ding that squotter sovereignty established
by which made subject 10 tho
constitution. of necessity conceded that squattcr
sovereignty was constitutional.
This is matter of far higher Importance to us
than party harmony, and though we may regret
the necessity fordiilerng from those with whom
we cooperate ralitcally,we should be dereliot 10
our duty Southern men, and to our principles
as independents and honest men, If we permitted
any such consideration to restrain us from the
free Inference of sentiments we cherish with per-
feet conviction of their reotitude, and solemn
appreciation of their importance.
II we could beeve,as the Staunton Convention
seem to have done, that squatter sovereignty is
constitutional, and is sanctioned by the law ere.
ating Territorial government for Kansas we
should feel that our lips were sealed upon the
plan adopted by the North for making free State
of that Territory. We should feel that the pro
ceedngs Of the Emgrant Aid Societies, and the
Topeka Convention, and Legisaure-of Reeder
and Lane and Robinson were in accordance with
law, and not to be opposedb by the South Instead
of.drving back the hireling invaders from the
North and from Europe with the bayonet and the
bowie-knife, as the people of Missouri did in their
own defence, land did rightfuy) instead ofhang.
ing the Topeka traitors for the attempt to set up
a government in opposition to one existing under
the constitution las their great crime merits) all
opposition to these proceedings should at once
cease, and those who have opposed them should
be regarded as the real offenders against law and
right and the public peace,
We cannot agree with the American that SQUAT,
ter sovereignty is in the Kansas bill because the
friends of squatter sovereignty say it is there
That is the very point at which we meet them.
They allege that IT is there, under the postulate
thatiti consistent with the con stitution We.
believing that il is inconsistent with the cons,i
tuition, deny that il is there. Is their assump,
ton of the very point in issue TO be quoted AZ
authority against US Ant-slavery politicians
assert that Congress has power under the con
stitution to abolish slavery in the District of Co
lumbia-shall we concede 1t because they assert
it! Phillips and Garrison maintain that the
federal government may abolish slavery in the
States-are their nsanities to be oited as author
ity tor the South! David Wilmot insists that
hls froyiso IS -constitutinnal-and Lewis Cass
makes speeches to prove that sluatter sovereign.
ty is constitutional must the South admit these
things because their advocates ssert tben1 Il
is SO of the Kansas bill. Northern Democrats
may argue till doomsday that the provision of
that bill which makes it subject to the oonstitu-
ton does not prevent its recognition of squatter
: sovereignty-but we shall do our own thinking
and iorm our own conclusions in regard to that,
- all other matters We discuss as public journal
lists.
The Staunten Convention would have done
we'll to have denounced the advocates of that