The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1856-08-13
Squatter Sovereignty.


nounced himself as entertaining the doctrine of
non-interference, but at the same time insidi-
ously substituted this doctrine of "squatter
Sovereignty This was the whole political
staple with which the southern democracy en-
tered into the presidential conflict Of 848.-
The wings insisted upon svhat has turned out
to be the true Interpretation, so admitted by
Mr.. Cass, and will be proved in the sequel, J
while the democrats knowingly accepted and
insisted upon false one.
Mr.. Douglas, following the lead of Mr.. Cass,
has fully embraced squatter sovereignty, which,
in 1850, was pronounced by Jefferson Davis
and William r. King, Of Alabama, freesoism.
We will see by the record The discussion
arose in the United States senate:
''The pending question was on the following
amendment offered by the senator from Ohio,
Mr.. Chase) to the amendment of the senator
from Mississippi, (Mr Davis, provided fur
ther, that nothing herein contained shall be
construed as authorising or permitting the in
PRODUCTION Of slavery, or the holding of fpersons
as property within the said territory" Cong.
Globe, Vol. XII, Part H., 1114.
'Mr. Douglas-I wish to say one word be-
fore this part of the bill is voted upon. must
confess that I rather regretted that clause had
been introduced into this bill providing that the
territorial governments should not legislate in
respect to African slavery. The position that
have ever taken has been, that this and all
other questions relating to the domestic affairs
and domestic policy Of the territories ought to
be left to the decision of the people themselves
and that we ought to be content with whatever
way they may decide the question, because
they have amuch deeper interest in these mat
ters than we have, and know much better what
institutions suit them than we, who have never
been there, can decide for them.''
"Again-I do not see how those Of us who
have taken the position which we have taken
(that of non-interference) and have argued in
favor of the right of the people to legislate
for themselves on this question, can support
such provision without abandoning all the ar
guments which we urged in the presidential
campaign in the year 1848, and the principles
set forth by the honorable senator from Michi-
gan in that letter which is known as the Mich
olson letter. We are required to abandon that
platform, we are required to abandon those
principles and to stultifv ourselves, and to adopt
the opposite doctrine-and for what? In order
to say that the people of a territory shall not
have such institutions as they shall deem adapt
ed to their condition and to their wants. -
Ibid, page l1l4
In reply, Jefferson Davis remarked-"A
word now to the senator from Illinois, Mr..
Douglass its to his argument that address
myself. The difference between that senator
and myself consists in who are the people,
The senator says that the inhabitants of ter
ritory have a right to decide what their insti
tutons shall be. When? By what authority?
How many of them? Does the senator tell me,
as he said once before, from the authority of
God? Then one man goes into a territory and
establishes the fundamental law for all time to
come. It would then be unquestonaby the
unanimous opinion of what that law should be;
and are all the citizens ofthe United States joint
owners of that territory, to be excluded because
one man chooses to exclude all others who
might come there? claim that a people hav-
ing sovereignty over a territory, have power to
decide what their institutions shall be. This is
the democratic doctrine, as [ have always un-
derstood it, and, under our constitution, them
habltants of our territories acquire that right
whenever the United States surrenders the SOW
ereignty to them by consenting than they shall
become States of the Union, and they have no
such right before. The difference, then, be-
tween the senator from Illinois and myself is
the point at which the people do possess this
right. 1t is not the inhabitants of terri
tory, but the people as political body, the peo-
pie organised, who have the right, and, on be-
coming State, by the authority of the United
States, exercising sovereignty overthe territory,
they may establish a fundamental law for all
time to come. Ibid, page Ills.
Mr.. Doug las, in reply to Mr.. Davis, still en-
forced the same views he expressed above.
Mr.. Downs, of Louisiana, in reply to Mr..
Douglas, said-I am very sorry, sir, to hear
the honorable senator from Illinois say, that
there is anything in this bill or in the amend
ments made to this section by the committee,
that is in violation of the principle of noninter-
vention declared in the Nicholson letter of the
senator from Michigan. I thought,
sir, it was the very thing. The ground ditis put
upon in the report, as l contended the other
day, | thought made it precisely Of this con
l fnd Mr.. president, that I was not
alone in this construction of it, for the press,
throughout the country, the democratic press
have universally considered the ques-
ton as to the territories, precisely as one ac-
cording with the views of the honorable sena
tor from Michigan But, if the meaning of that
letter is to be frttcred away in that way-and
there have been some explanations in regard
to that letter-if the very foundation of that
letter is to be taken away, shall regret it deep
ly, because give different construction to it.
Again in continuation he says and sub
nit to him now, to reflect, whatever our impress
sion may have been on this principle hereto
fore, that he conceives under the practice which
he had under it for twelve months, that the
people of thete territory, under any circumstances,
could form a constitution and exclude emigra
ton from the south ask him, if it can be
likely that the south will calmly ac-
qniesce in principle which would certainly ex-
clude ?''-Ibid, page 1l14.
William R. King participated in the debate,
and said: -..r~
tsSr, do not think there is solitary gen
tleman on the other side, belonging to a partic-
ular party, that would be in favor of giving to
these territorial legislatures this full power to
pass laws either for the prohibition the intro
duction of slavery. They would be afraid of its
and the probability is that their
fears would not be entirely groundless I, sir, |
am opposed to giving to the territorial legisla-