The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-07-31
BUCHANAN ON saUArrER SOVEREIGNTY
Another Important Document.

1t is a remarkable fact, that while the onno.
sition press of Virginia accuses Mr.. Bucbanan
of teaching the doctrine of Squatter Soyereign.
ty, another Know Nothing paper in Alabama
arraigns him for protesting directly the con.
trary principle. The Mobile ADVERTISER repro.
duces the following letter, for the purpose Of
proving that the Democratic candidate main.
tains that the sovereignty over the Territories
resides IN the Federal Government:
WASHINGTON, august 81, l84S.
DEAR SIR: have Just received yours of the
18th instant, in which you submit to me the
following paragraph, and ask whether it con.
tains an accurate version of the conversation
between US, concerning my Berks county let
ter, on the occasion to which you refer
"Hsppening to meet Mr.. Buchanan at tn
Presidents levee, on Friday evening, called
his attention to this letter, and asked him if h.
intended to be understood as claiming that tn.
population of a Territory in an unorganized Ca
pacity had the right to control the question Of
Slavery in such Territory. He declared tina,
no such idea had ever been maintained by him;
that the construction put upon his language BY
Mr.. ancey was perversion of its plain and Oh
vious meaning; that, in his opinion, the inhab
itants of Territory, as such, had no political
rights, although they possessed all the private
rights of American citizens that they had 10
power whatever over the subject of Slavery; and
they could neither interdict nor establish it. ex.
cept when assembled in Convention to form
State Constitution. He further authorized and
requested me to make any public use of these
declarations that might think proper, 70 cor
rect any impression which Mr.. Yancey5 con.
struction of his language in the Berks letter
might have made"
With the addition which | have inserted be
tween brackets, this statement is substantially
and almost literally correct, according to my
recollection.
In my letter to Berks county of the 25th Au.
gust, l847, l had said, under the Missouri
Compromise, Slavery was forever prohibited
north of the parallel Of Sc degrees 30 minutes,
and south OF this parallel the question was left
to be decided by the people" What people?
Undoubtedly the people of the Territory assem-.
bled in Convention to form a State Constitution,
and ask admission into the Union; and not the
first adventures, or first comers," who might
happen to arrive in the Territory assembled in
public meeting. If doubt on this subject conM
possibly exist, it is removed by the next sue.
ceeding sentence of my letter. | proceeded to
state Congress, on the admission of Texas,
adopted the same rule" &c. And what was
this rule? The joint resolution for annexing
Texas to the United States" approved March
lst l845, answers the question in the following
words: "And such States as may be formed
out of that portion of said Territory living south
of SO degrees 80 minutes north latitude. com.
monty known as the Missouri Compromise line,
shall be admitted into the Union with or with.
out Slavery, as the people Of each State asking
admission may desire" Such was the descrip-
ton of the people to whom referred in my
Berks county letter.
Any other construction of the letter would
render it essentially inconsistent with itself
Having urged the adoption of the Missouri Com.
promise, the Inference is irresistible, that Con
gress, In my opinion, possesses the power to leg,
islate upon the subject of Slavery in the Terri
tories. What an absurdity, would it then be-
if, whilst asserting this SOVEREIGNPOWER
IN CONGRESS, ,chich potcer from its nature
must be EXCLUSIVE, / should in the very
same breadth also claim this identical power
for the population of Territory in an unor-
gained capacity?"
In conclusion, desire to reitcrate and reaf.
firm every sentiment contained in INV Berks
county letter. / cling to the Missouri Compro.
mise with greater tenacity than ever. and vet
firmly believe that it will be adopted By Con
gress. Yours, very respectfully,
JAMES BUCHANAN.
Il. Sdndford, Esq.
The Enquirer remarks:
This is formal and public exposition of
opinion, and presents the deliberate conviction
OF Mr.. Buchanan on the vexed question of the
relations of Slavery in the Territories. In claim.
ing for Congress exclusive control over the Ter,
ritories, Mr.. Buchanan emphatically repudiates
the idea OF squatter sovereignty. But, in claim
ing for Congress this exclusive sovereignty, he
does not imply that the Federal Legislature may
prohibit or abolish Slavery in the Territories.
1t does not follow, that because Congress NAV
legislate for the protection of Slavery in the
Territories that it may legislate for its abolition
The distinction is obvious and incontestable.
Indeed, the very fact that power is reserved to
the Federal Legislature to protect property with.
in the Territories, implies that Congress has no
power to destroy it.