The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1856-10-01
WHAT THEY SAY OF THEMSELVES lead

~ Hal 1ttEi 9Ai VI HS iSao7
ing organ of southern statesrights democracy,
THE Charleston Mercury, of the lth Septem
Der last, contains The following review Of the
| principles Of its party, 10 which we ask the
attention Of all southerners, the specially
those who have 50 ardently embraced the squat
ter sovereignty doctrines advanced By Mr.
I Buchanan in his letter accepting the nomlna-
ton OF the Cincinnati convention.
The DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE SoUTH-
When senator Douglas introduced the Nebras-
ka bill, he declared that it was intended only to
carry out, as to the territories of Kansas and
Nebraska, the principle OF the compromise
measures of 1850. That principle was 'tpopu-
lar sovereignty" Its application in 1850 had
excluded the south from California. Although
the south in 1850 had repudiated and denoun-
ced ''squatter sovereignty" yet, in | 254, when
II the same doctrine was engrafted upon the bill
organising the the territories Of Kansas and
II Nebraska, coupled with the repeal of the Mis-
souri, compromise line, her representatives in
congress supported the measure, and her peo-
pie acquiesced in it. What was the cause of
i this startling change? The question is an
swered-the repeal of the Missouri compromise
line, and the hope of securing Kansas ass slave
State. But for this last expectation, the south
never would have accepted the Nebraska bill.
Now, what was this principle Of popular
sovereignty" as expounded. by Mr.. Douglas
and asserted by the Nebraska bill? The Ian
guage Of the bill is that the people Of the terrific
ries should "be free to form their own domestic
institutions, subject only to the constitution of
the United States"
Mr.. Cass, and other leaders of the democratic
party, further explained the doctrine as fol-
lows: The people of a territory are sovereign,
and the act of congress organising the terrific
rial government is a recognition, by congress,
of that sovereignty. The only limit to this
Sovereignty is the constitutions the u States,
as expounded BY the supreme court. The d.
rect conclusion from such premises, and which
Casss and the democratic party repeatedly as
serted, was, that after the passage by congress
of the act organising the territorial government
congress should not interfere, in any manner,
with theterrtorial legislation. And the great
merit claimed by them in favoro the Nebras-
ka bill was. that t.put an end to congressional
intervention. 1t was direct pledgeto the coun-
try, and especially to the south, whose charac-
ter and institutions had, fortwenty years, been
iassalled on the floors of congress- that hence
forward congressional agitation should cease.
The only arbiter over territorial legislation was
to be the courts of the United States. Right
or wrong, this was the agreement-this the
compromise.
If the principle that the inhabitants of ter
rtory sovereign, be correct, LEGISLATION is
terereaGer hH It VIII not do to say that frauds
were perpetrated at the elections. Admit it
but who is to inquire into them, or to rectify
them2 Doesscongress ever inquire into the re-
euiality ofseltctons to the State legislatures?
No more can it do so of the elections of terri
tory. if the territory is sovereign. These pro-
positions are too plain to need elucidation. Suf
| fee it to say that the Nebraska bill meant this,
or it meant nothing ''Squatter sovereignty
was this. or nothing. And so Mr.. Douglas
and the democratic party taught us=to believe.
| What have we seen? The territorial legis-
lature of Kansas pass laws, admitting and pro-
tecting slavery, and therefore obnoxious to
| abolitionism And what is the course of Mr..
Douglas and other democratic leaders in con-
gress? Six years ago, when, under the same
principle of popular sovereignty" abolition
ism in California excluded the south from that
magnificent domain, and she protested against
it, the leaders of hegdemocratic party sustain
ed the principle and sanctioned our exclusion.
What, we repeat is their course when the
people of Kansas, acting under the same doc
trlne, pass laws protecting slavery? Mr.. Dou
glas comes forward with bis Specification bill;'
a bill which, in the teeth Of popular sovereign
ty," in the teeth of the Nebraska bill ITSELF re-
pealed whole statutes of the territorial legsla-
ture. And this measure, so fragrant in its VIC
ation of the just uttered pledges of the demo-
cratic party-tbls measure, revlvlng 'congres
slonal lntervention,' and repeating the laws of
a pro-slayery territorial egislalure-actualIy
passes the United States senate by the vote of
the democratic party and Of the southern SEN
ators! There is a still lower deep, with an eff
frontery beyond conception. Mr.. Douglas, in
bis late speech, even vaunts that the democratic
senators were willing to repeal the obnoxious
laws, while the freesollers resisted it for politi-
cal effect. Mr.. Hunter of Virginia. adopts the
same view, and Mr. Orr of South Carolina, !
tout sHerods" all by invoking executive inter
yenton to strangle Judge and Jury for the
escape OF abolition maIefactors in Kansas!
Can betrayal of the principle go further?-
What is this doctrine of popular Sovereignty.
that to-day repudlates congressional interven
ton, and tomorrow invites it-that makes the
tohi . vi tLIc Outcu oLdtcS Inc SOle dfDlef, vet
calls upon abolitionised congress and the presi-
dent to trample upon them? Popular. SOW
ereignty for California, and popular sovereignty
for Kansas, are very different things. 1t is to
be lauded and upheld, when it excludes slavery
but to be repudiated when it admits slavery.
Congressional Intervention, or the other hand,
is TO be repudiated when invoked to protect
slavery in California but to be fostered when
invoked to crush it in Kansas! The compro-
mise of 1850 is to be kept whenit defrauds the
south, but TO be violated when it benefits her.
Such is the last warning specimen of national
democratic faith.
And lsit expected of the people of this State
that they will shout hosannas at the heels of a |
party which stands ready SO to insult d,tram-
pie on them? Shall we crnge and fawn about
party which. by its recent acts, assuressus in
what contemplate esteem it holds its own prin
cples and our rights?, Shall we, despite the |
experience of California, and these demonstra-
tons, still praise the glorious doctrine of squat
ter sovereignty,?' and look to the democratic
party to enforce it faithfully? One thing is |