Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1856-06-30
Old Buck, the Enquirer, and squatter Sovereignty.


The Enquirer of Friday attempts reply to our
article Of the day before, in which we charged Mr..
Buchanan-and, we believe, proved the charge
with propoundng the doctrine of "squatter sover-
eighty" in his letter OF acceptance. Our neghbor
abors ingcniousy to show that Old Buck instead of
approving OF endorsing that doctrine, distinctly
pudiaies it, But his effort to this end in judy
ment, is signal and absolute failure.
We are indeed surprised that there should exist
two opinions this subject The language en-
ployed by Mr. Buchanan to express his views touch
ing the rights and powers OF the people Of the Ter
ritories is really susceptible Of but interpreta-
ton That is own opinion. The EaqUirer,
however thinks otherwise, saying-"We say, with
out the least hesitation, that regret Mr.. Bucha
did not either employ more precise language
or else conne himself to the literal text Of the Gin
oinnati Platform, in defining his position in respect
to the doctrine of territorial sovereignty" Here,
then is an admission on the part of the Enquirer
that Mr. Buchanan does not at least repudiste the
principle Of sluatter sovereignty in sufficiently clear
and Ineligible terms In other words that the lam
guage he employs this subject is liable to dou-
BILE construction that is it enables his followers
sustain and recommend him r squatter sovereign
" man or an anti -squatter sovereignty man,
the exigencies of the NAV require. And such
is precisely the course his friends pursuing
In the North, he is represented as a genuine squat
ter sovereignty advocate the South, the opposite
tactic prevail; and thus will he be supported
throu ,hout the canvass, and, if elected, the
other side will find themselves egregously humbug-
ged.
Notwithstanding its profession of regret
of what it considers the obscurity of his Ian
guage on this subject, the Enquirer still contends
structon of it, and that The neither approves nor
to promulgate the principle of squattcr soye
reignty" There three satisfactory considera
tons" according To the Enquirer in support Of its
opinion.
First: In advocating the admission OF Arkansas Mr.
Buchanan propounded the theory Of territorial
Feignty maintaining that the people of territory, in ge
neral convention and by provision OF State constitution
might sanction exclude slavery. Nor has he since
avowed any opinion inconsistent with this principle
Now, bv way of meeting this one of the EaqHi-
rer's satisfactory considerations" have merely
TO say that that there is the slight
est inconsistency in squatter sovereignty man
maintaining that the people of territory. in gene
raj convention, and by provision of State constitu-
ton, might sanction or exclude slavery" II the
proposition was that the people OF territory, only
when about TO form State constitution in
ton called for that purpose, had the right to sane
ton exclude slavery" we should at admit il
as incompatible with advocacy Of the principle Of
squattcr sovereignty But such is not Mr. Buclia-
mans position, as stated by the Enquirer. Admit
ting it rightly stated in the above paragraph we
still contend that that is no proof Of his not being
the sworn friend of squatter sovereignty. For we
take it for granted without confession argument,
that il comedies to a dozen fifty people OF
territory the right 10 sanction exclude slavery
ne would not be unwilling to concede the same right
to fifty or a hundred thousand He may therefore
be stern champion Of the doctrine Of squatter so
vereignty, and still allow the prOpiety Of the peo-
pie Of a territory, when they come to adopt State
constitution, TO sanction exclude slavery" as
seemeth to them best Is not this so? We main
tain that il is. Nor the ingenious sophistry Of
the Enquirer get around the argument We believe
our readers will concur with that it is impregna-
BILE and conclusive. AS TO Mr. Buchanans not hav.
ing avowed amy opinion inconsistent with the opin.
ion ascribed to him in the paragraph We have quo
ted, that is all assumption. We believe he has
And the extracts made from his letter day or
two ago sufficiently demonstrate it.
We come to the Ea9uirer's second "satisfac-
tory consideration" which is stated as follows
"secony The very word. quoted by the WING in sup
port Of its inference, directly exclude the doctrine Of
SquAtter Sovereignty In his letter OF acceptance Mr.
Buchanan afirns shat the people Of territory like
those of State shall decide for themselves Wb.tb,,
slavery shall shall exist within its limits He doc
say the Inhabitants Of territory; he does not say
LegdfHrS Of territory but he the pDoDle OF terri.
tory. obviously implying organic political body The
only legitimate representation Of the people Of territory
n sovereign capacity, Is the convention which ofganzes
State governments. The ouly recognized organization
through which they express their will IL by the con.
Venon which exercises the sovereign prerOgave Of en-.
acting fundamental law OF State constitution ANY A..
eemb Of the people Of territory except in convention
o. institute State government j. illegal aud without au.
tborty Of leg-auon. The Legislature Of territory
no. the people Of a territory. When speak Of the
PecPIe OF territory, in respect Of political poser,
only the people assembled IN constitution.
al convention; and NJ Buchanan simply says that IN,
constitutional convention by provision Of organic law
may admit or exclude slavey. This j. the true doctrine
aud not Squitter Sovereignty"
We submit that the above paragraph Is the most
perfectly sophstical that ever appeared in political
journal IT is mere leather an prnnea" from he.
ginning n end Their Is not an ota Of soundness
in IL II is all moonsbne. How any man with
common intelligence ran mistake the meaning Of Mr.
Buchanan language. l. 10 ms utterly Incompetent
sible II is just plain the honely nose on ON
Beigbbor's homaly lace-which Is plain 10 a most ri
doulous excess. The EagHirers highfalnt;n di.
tinctons between the "inha6itdnb,o and the "L,g,.
idtUre" and the "peopie" Of Territory amount lit,
rally 10 nothing. when we consider the explicit an
emphatic terms In which Nc buchanan has define
his views touching the rights and powers Of the pc,
pie Of the Territories. These are his words. "Tl
people 81 Territory, IKE n0'e of a SUITE, sha
decide for homseieo phethor siaserv slaH NJ s6a
not srih Diaia their Hnits" Nov, the whol
pith and point Of the Enquircrs argument in refe
ence 10 this language is that Buchanan when tht
speaking Of "the people Of Territory, does u,
mean the people IN their territorial capacity but u
people iH ns oct Of organizing State constitute
when IN fact they soseyeign, because they Al
then exercising the highest function Of soyereignt
subject only 10 the single constitutional condition
making their government republican government
Nor, when thus in the act Of forming State cons
tuition, can they any longer be said TO be in terri
torisi condition. Congress has assented TO the q,
sndt"y ~ 'orersiyN, 10 all ntents and purpose