Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1856-07-05
More Of the Record.

More Of the Record.
Bnchanan against sgnatter sovereignty in 1848.
IN favor of poacer Of Congress to prohibit sla-
very IN the Territories. Buchanan in favor
Of sqnatter Sovereignty in 1856
We feel that no words of encouragement are
necessary to attract attention to the following let
ter from Mr.. Buchanan to Thaddeus Sanford,
Esq, Of Mobile.
This letter was published in the Mobile Regis
ter Ia Democratic JournaD of October 4, 1s4s,
and it is now reproduced for general inspection,
that all the freemen of this country may be con.
vinced how unreliable the opinions of James Blu
chanan have been and are. We declare that It is
our belief he has been on every side of every
question of Importance that has been discussed
since the last war with Great Britain and that,
however positive the opinions may have been at
the time of their expression his record will exhib
it more bold and reckless contradictions of senti-
msnt, made, evidently, to catch the popular breeze
at the moment, than that of any other American
politician of any celebrity.
The Southern Democracy may as well open their
eyes upon the fact that many of the leading South
ern Democrats now an Congress advocate to-day
the squatfer sovereignty doctrine and have no con-
cealment about it. Others of that Democracy
have yielded to the doctrine but are afraid TO
avo,o IT, The Southern Democrats now in Con-
gress swallow Buchanans heresy in favor of squat
ter sovereignty because they know Cass, Douglas,
Toucey, Peck, George w. Jones, Letcher, Cobb,
Stephens, are all for the doctrine and mean to
maintain il. Shall we hear the Southern Democ-
racy next declaring squatter sovereignty to be
sound Democratic doctrine9 We shall see. But
to the letter Of Mr.. Buchanan:
THE SANFORD LETTER.
WASHINGTON, August 81, Is4s.
DEAR Sir: have just received yours of the
18th instant, in which you submit to me the fol-
lowing paragraph, and ask whether it contains an
accurate version of the conversation between us.
concerning my Berks county letter on the occasion
to which you refer:
Happening to meet Mr.. Buchanan at the Pres
idents levee, on Friday evening, called his atten-
ton TO this letter. and asked him If he intended to
be understood as claiming that the population OF
Territory in an unorganized capacity had the
right to control the question of slavery in such
Territory. He declared that no sach idea had ever
been maintained by him; that the construction put
upon his language by Mr.. Yancey was perversion
OF its plain and obvious meaning that in his opn-
ion, the inhabitants of Territory, as such, had no
political rights lalthough they possessed all the
private rights OF American citizens 4 that they had
| no power whatever over the subject Of slavery
and they could neither interdict nor establish it,
except when assembled in convention to form a
State constitution. He further authorized sud re-
quested me to make any public use of these decla
ratons that I might think proper, to correct any
| impression which Mr. Yaneeys construction of his
language in the Berks letter might have made"
With the addition which have inserted between
brackets, this statement is substantially and almost
literally correct, according to my recollection.
| In my letter to Berks county of 25th August
| l847, had said, "under the Missouri compromise
slavery was forever prohibited North of the paral
lei of SO degrees 80 minutes, and South of this
parallel the question was left to be decided by the
people," What peoples Undoubtedly the people
of the Territory assembled in convention to form
State constitution and ask admission into the
Union and not the first adventures or " first
corners" who might happen to arrive in the Terri
tory assembled in public meeting. II doubt on
this subject could possibly exist, IL is removed by
the next succeeding sentence of nv letter. pro.
ceeded to state Congress on the admission OF
Texas, adopted the same rule etc And what
was this rules "The Joint Resolution for annexino
Texas to the United States" approved March lat
l845, answers the question in the following words
And such States as may be formed out of that por
ton Of said Territory lying south of thirty six de-
gress thirty minutes north latitude, commonly
known as the Missouri compromise line shall be
admitted into the Union, with or without slavery
as the people of each State asking admission man
! desire" Such was the description of the neonje
TO whom referred in my Berks county letter.
Amy other construction of the letter would rem
der il essentially inconsistent with itself Having
urged the adoption Of the Missouri Compromise
the inference is irresistible that Congress, in nv
opinion, possesses the power to legslste upon the
subject Of slavery in the Territories What an alb
surdity would IL then be, i whilst asserting this
so VEREIGN POWER IN CONGRESS, ohic,
porer from ats nature must be EXCL USTVE, /
should in the very same breath also calm this
identical power for the population Of Territory
In an unorganized capacity :" m
In conclusion, desire to reiterate and reafIirm
every sentiment contained In my Berks county
letter ! cling to the Missouri Compromise with
greater tenacity than ever, and yet firmly believe
that IL will be adopted by Congress.
Yours, very respectfully,
JAMES BUCHANAN.
7. SANFORD, ESQ.,